Public Services: Productivity

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether official data relating to public services show that productivity has fallen since 1997 by 10 per cent overall and by 15 to 20 per cent in health and education.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no "official data relating to public services" currently measure the productivity of health and education. It has become increasingly clear that the current data exclude some important public sector outputs, do not adequately recognise improvements in quality, do not capture improved outcomes and fail to recognise that present capital expenditure is designed to build capacity for higher output in the future.
	In December 2003, acknowledging the importance and complexity of the issue, the National Statistician asked Sir Tony Atkinson to undertake an independent review of measures of government output and productivity.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I am sure he is aware that the figures in the Question are from a leaked restricted Cabinet committee document—a committee chaired by the Prime Minister—so I did not expect him to confirm them. However, can I at least try to persuade the noble Lord that productivity is not what it should be in the public services? What are the Government trying to do about that, other than trying to persuade the Office for National Statistics to produce more favourable figures?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was fully aware of where the figures came from—I read the Sunday Times too—but that is not the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is saying that we are trying to produce more favourable figures. The problem is that the existing figures are not only much worse than inaccurate; they are actually perverse. They go in the opposite direction from common sense. If, like many educationists, one thinks it is desirable to reduce class sizes so that the ratios between pupils and teachers improve in the sense that kids get better education, that shows up as a decrease in productivity in the education sector. It does not make sense and it must be put right.

Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the position is worse than he describes? We could easily raise productivity in health simply by not treating all the people whose expectations of life are poor and who are very ill and need difficult treatment. In education, if we did not try to educate people who have learning difficulties, productivity would rise dramatically. However, such action would go against our concepts of public service and so we should not fall for this productivity nonsense in the first place.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, by giving only one example from education, I was sparing the House a long lecture in agreeing with my noble friend Lord Peston. With regard to health statistics, outcomes show that, for example, chronic heart disease mortality is down by more than 20 per cent and cancer mortality by more than 8 per cent in under-75s since 1997. With regard to education, 52.9 per cent of 16 year-olds achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A-star to C compared with 46.3 per cent in 1997–98. These are real advances that show up as declines in productivity. It is total nonsense.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government are trying to do something about productivity in the public sector via the Gershon process and that many of the Chancellor's hopes of improving productivity rest with that? Will he confirm recent reports that the potential savings, despite being identified by the Gershon report, are being radically watered down by Ministers and civil servants?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I will not confirm that. The message I am trying to get over is that there are real improvements in outcomes in health, education and the public services generally. These are starting to be recognised by the people of this country as real improvements in outcomes and we will not be diverted by perverse statistical errors.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend feel that, in view of what he has read and the leak in the Sunday Times, it is time he stopped taking the Sunday Times?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not buy it—I come and read it in your Lordships' Library.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that mental health practitioners are penalised if they work with the carers rather than directly with the patients? If a mental health profession child psychotherapist works with the staff in a pupil referral unit, he can say, "According to the NHS, my time is being as well spent as if I were playing a round of golf", whereas if he worked directly with a client, which is often important, that would be monitored and noted? Is that not a barrier to better partnership working and the more effective use of the scarce resource in mental health services?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very grateful for that independent Cross-Bench confirmation of the message that I am trying to convey to the House. I am trying to say that this is not only a statistical aberration but one which could, if taken too seriously, cause damage to the public services.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have always supported far greater expenditure on the health service. However, is there not a danger of great public cynicism when the measurement of the use of that money is not properly evaluated? It seems that the Government have come very late in the day to discovering that their productivity measurement is flawed. Is it not high time that we had a much better measurement and that the set of statistics and the new set of measurements to which the Minister referred do not only coincide with the next general election?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that that is true. I seem to remember answering questions along these lines over a considerable period. It is true that we have only more recently appointed Professor Atkinson to look at the statistics. But doubts on this subject have been expressed in this House—and by me—for quite some time. If that is a rebuke for being too pusillanimous in resisting irrational opposition, I suppose that I have to share in pleading guilty to it.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we on this side accept that there is a real problem in measuring productivity in the public sector. However, does the Minister agree that international comparisons are far more helpful? What is his answer to the economists at the European Central Bank whose survey last year stated that Britain is more inefficient than the US, Japan or Australia to the extent that, if it matched the American standard, it could spend 16 per cent less on the public sector and still achieve the same results?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for giving me notice of that question. I am afraid that the statistics to which he referred are subject—perhaps to a lesser, but still substantial, degree—to the same criticism as our own unofficial productivity statistics. Of course, real international comparisons, when properly carried out, can be of enormous value, but I am afraid that they are not carried out properly here or in other countries.

Secondary Schools: Sex and Relationship Education

Lord Northbourne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether maintained secondary schools are fulfilling their obligations to teach their pupils about the legal and moral responsibilities attaching to each partner responsible for causing a child to be conceived; and whether this education has been successful in reducing teenage pregnancy.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, all maintained secondary schools have a statutory requirement to teach sex and relationship education (SRE). SRE includes moral and emotional development as well as an understanding of how the law applies to sexual relationships. Improving the quality of SRE in schools is a key strand of our teenage pregnancy strategy, which resulted in a 9.4 per cent reduction in under-18 conception rates between 1998 and 2002.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that good news. At the same time, I have to point out that she drew attention only to what the law requires schools to do. I was hoping that she might be able to tell the House whether the Ofsted reports on schools over recent years have shown that the responsibilities of parenthood are being disseminated to people on the basis that ample research shows that, if they have children before they are capable of properly looking after them, they will disadvantage those children.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Sex and relationship education is taught within the wider framework of personal, social and health education (PSHE). That stresses the social and moral responsibilities and, as children grow older from primary school-age onwards, it addresses all those responsibilities. Since 2003, Ofsted has required every inspection to comment on PSHE in relation to sex and relationship education. That is a step forward and it is part of the way in which we are trying to drive our policy in schools. Indeed, I understand that Ofsted is carrying out an inspection of PSHE, and the results of that should be available later this year. Therefore, there will be something else to look forward to.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that countries which have much more widespread sex education than ours, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, have much lower rates of teenage pregnancy?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. It is a very sad fact that our figures are extremely poor compared with those in the rest of Europe. Indeed, I think that one of the worst statistics shows that the poorest areas in England have a conception/birth rate up to six times higher than that in the most affluent areas. Even our most affluent areas have teenage birth rates which are higher than the national rates of, for example, the Netherlands or France. That is precisely why we are investing so heavily in a coherent teenage pregnancy strategy linked to effective SRE in schools. That plays a very important part. We are serious about driving down those rates.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, the noble Baroness is no doubt aware of the emphasis that the Prime Minister recently, and rightly, laid on the part that parents can play in helping to overcome the worrying lack of discipline in schools. In the light of that, does the Minister agree that the earlier that parents-in-waiting, if I may call them that, are supported and educated in the crucial, but still far too undervalued, role that parents play in preparing their children for responsible adult citizenship, the better it will be?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I could not agree more; the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The guidance which schools are now following makes it absolutely clear that schools must work with parents as fully as possible. We carry out much work with parents through the teenage pregnancy strategy and, for example, Parentline Plus, which helps parents to access advice on how to talk to their children. Some very interesting work is taking place with young fathers—particularly those in deprived areas—through Sure Start Plus, for example, which looks at how we can support teenage parents so that they take pride in parenting and become effective parents. I wish that there were more that I could say because a great deal is going on in this area.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government do not give the same prominence to the "Say no" campaign as they do to the "Know how" campaign?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that in the guidance, heavy emphasis is placed upon how young people can resist and delay early sex and how they can assert themselves, particularly girls, so as not to be pressured into sex. That is a very important part of sex and relationship education.
	All the evidence suggests that abstinence alone does not work. That is very well documented, not least from the Alan Guttmacher Institute in America, which is a known authority. Indeed, our policy is evidence based. It is the competence of education plus media strategy which is effective.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the programmes promoted by the Family Planning Association for schools have been extremely successful. However, does the Minister feel that there is sufficient emphasis upon parenting within such programmes?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is up to schools to draw on whatever resources they find. The Government do not tell them what and how to teach in this area although we lay down the framework. Certainly, the FPA materials are extremely effective. But parenting information can be obtained from other sources; for example, the Parenting Education and Support Forum, which has produced some excellent guidance on what a good parenting programme might look like for 15 and 16 year-olds. So, there are a variety of sources, most of which are on the web. Teachers are becoming adept at drawing down what they think they can use most effectively.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that despite the drive for further education in this area, with which we all agree, that should not undermine the assistance that society rightly gives to young teenage mothers and their children?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is absolutely the case, and we have a very good record on that. One of the most effective aspects is the Sure Start programme, which concentrates on areas of deprivation, and provides a wide range of support to parents in difficult circumstances.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, are boys being specifically targeted for sex education? That seems to be an area which is particularly important.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, indeed. As the guidance makes clear, one of the problems is that boys have not always been receptive to or apparently interested in sex education. Many boys do not want to discuss their maths homework with their fathers, let alone sex, so we have a long way to go. However, we have commissioned practical guidance for teachers on engaging boys. The guidance ensures that that is prominent. The PSHE website contains some very good examples of how to engage boys in some of the aspects of building relationships, which is extremely important. We are targeting many of our media campaigns, for example, on local radio, popular newspapers and teenage magazines, which young boys read and to which they respond.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that young women leaving care are two and a half times more likely to become pregnant in their teenage years? Can she say what particular attention is being given to their needs in preparation for leaving care?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the commitment of the noble Earl to raising standards for young people in care is very well known. Certainly, those young people should have had access to the best formula of sex education while in school. Many of our programmes focus on young people in deprived areas. The Sure Start Plus programme, for example, is concentrated in 35 local areas. However, I shall find out specifically whether we have programmes which address the question and shall write to the noble Earl.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the comparison between the success of the "Say no" campaign in the United States as compared with the sophisticated sex education campaign in the Netherlands which has produced the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, yes. I reiterate that the evidence we have, which is well researched, is that abstinence campaigns alone, especially ones which do not follow exhortation with education, information and access to responsible contraception, are not effective. However, when we have a coherent education programme, that does affect attitudes. We are in this for the long term.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I appreciate the value of the Ofsted inspection and the importance of the guidance to which the Minister referred. However, it still seems that sex education in schools is of a hit and miss nature. Are steps being taken comprehensively to monitor the programmes in schools and to collect best practice and the most effective methods of teaching, which can be further disseminated?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, we are doing all that. It is not only Ofsted which is involved now. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is developing exemplar schemes of work and more guidance. We know that in some places education is patchy. We are developing certification schemes for teachers of personal, social and health education so that they can build up their own good practice. We have targeted 3,000 teachers for that extra certification and quality this year. We think that when that percolates through the schools it will be particularly effective.

Privacy Law

Lord McNally: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the recent ruling by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in the case of Campbell v MGN Limited, whether they have any plans to introduce a privacy law.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have always said that it is for the courts to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy. The judgment vindicates the Government's view and we have no plans to introduce a statutory privacy law.

Lord McNally: My Lords, is not the implication of that Answer that we are to have a privacy law in a back-door, ad hoc way, which will do great damage and cause great confusion to both the public and the media? Would it not be far better to have a privacy law which could be scrutinised—there could be pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament and full public debate, which would set both the public and the media on a proper basis—rather than to go the way we are, which is the way to confusion?

Lord Filkin: No, my Lords. The Human Rights Act already requires the courts to protect people's right to respect for their private and family lives. Furthermore, over recent years a range of statutory provisions have enhanced that. I refer to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 in addition to the common law remedies available of defamation, nuisance and breach of confidence. There is never a simple answer to where press freedom or freedom of speech ends and the individual's protection of their privacy starts. That is why the courts have to strike that balance and make that judgment on the individual facts and circumstances.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, having spent 14 years as chairman of the Newspaper Publishers Association perhaps I may add an example of one area that might be considered as rising above the others. In my personal view, harassment of any person who seeks treatment for a serious drug problem is unacceptable.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not go into the detail of the Appellate Committee's judgment—it is available in the Library of the House for those who want to inspect it—but it is relevant to this Question. It was never in contention on this case whether it was legitimate for the Mirror newspaper to publish the fact that the defendant, Naomi Campbell, took drugs. The reason it was never in contention was because she had made it clear publicly and promoted the fact that she did not take drugs. That is why that issue was never in contention. What was in contention were the ancillary issues around that.

Lord Renton: My Lords, I respectfully support the attitude of the Minister, bearing in mind that since very early times the privacy law of England and Wales has been adjusted according to the social circumstances in a way that has been found very effective.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I always make it a point of policy never to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, especially when he is complimenting me.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not about time that we had a press ombudsman? Not everyone can afford to go to the courts. The only redress they can aim for is through the Press Complaints Commission, which is widely seen as being under the domination of the media and in any event does not award compensation. Is it not about time that we had an ombudsman so that people could seek compensation and some sort of redress?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, ombudsmen do not normally award compensation. They normally make a finding of fact. Nevertheless, my noble friend raises an important issue; that is, while the law may be sound, is there effective access to justice for people who feel that they have been mistreated by the media? There are two points in that respect. The PCC deals with some 2,500 complaints each year. In its evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee it asserted that it achieves resolution in 95 per cent of those cases. Furthermore, conditional fee agreements appear, at least in the view of Carter-Ruck, to be working in this respect as a mechanism for bringing to court cases where people feel that they have been wrongly infringed by the media. Therefore, obviously we keep the issue under review, but it would be foolish to think that there was a simple answer.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the American law of privacy? Is he aware that my American law professor wife has written an altogether admirable book called Invasion of Privacy on the subject? Over the years, in the interests of education and inter-party harmony in exchanges in your Lordships' House, I have had to ask her to send copies to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and even the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. If I can help to educate them, would it help the Minister if I got my wife to send him a copy?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short answer is no, I do not know my noble friend's friend, but I am certainly open to education as he offers.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the freedom of the press is a fundamental democratic right and should be safeguarded. Does the Minister therefore agree that a privacy law may simply serve to protect those in a financial position to seek legal redress and in that sense may prove to be elitist?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is interesting; it is possible. At heart, one of the reasons why the Government do not believe that a specific privacy law would assist is that it would put into statute what is already effectively in statute through the Human Rights Act. It would have to say to the court, "Strike a balance between freedom of speech, under Article 10, and the privacy of the individual as I quoted". Therefore, it would not take us much further forward. They are important issues, but the courts are well placed to decide on them.

Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the study by Professor Ian Hargreaves of Cardiff University, which showed that about 10 per cent of the public believed what they read in the Sun? Is not the biggest danger to the freedom of the press a press that was itself held in contempt because of its deplorable standards?

Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, I was not aware.

Iraq: Treatment of Prisoners

Lord Campbell of Alloway: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in response to representations from the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International on the regime of treatment for prisoners in Iraq, they have withdrawn any instructions on coercive treatment techniques to break resistance to interrogation; and, if so, which instructions have been withdrawn.

Lord Bach: My Lords, there has been no need to amend or withdraw any part of the standard operating instructions in relation to tactical questioning, commonly known as interrogation, for operation TELIC. The instructions specify that individuals being questioned must be treated at all times fully in accordance with the Geneva protocols and must not be subjected to physical punishment. The instructions also direct that only personnel who have successfully completed a stringent Ministry of Defence course may undertake questioning. The course also directs that the Geneva protocols must be adhered to.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As he speaks for government, when the daily narrative concerning the ICRC representations of 4 February is self-contradictory and opaque, is it not requisite that clarification should be given? In the immediate interests, not only of the Armed Forces but of those detained, and of due administration, may I ask when the report on the regime of treatment as constituting serious violations of humanitarian law was received by any department of state in this country? If before last weekend, why was it not at once made available to the Prime Minister and Ministers, in particular those who answer at the Dispatch Box?
	As the report was discussed at a meeting on 26 February, to which Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the Prime Minister's special envoy, sent his chief adviser, and that was also attended by three British officials and Paul Bremer, why was it not then made available to the Prime Minister and Ministers?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall have to repeat a little of what I said in my Statement to the House two days ago. The ICRC report to which he refers raised two serious concerns in respect of British forces' treatment of prisoners and internees. The vast majority of that report had nothing to do with British internees or prisoners. Ministers were aware of the issues that the reports raised some five months before the report itself was handed over to Mr Bremer in February this year. Ministers have commented on those two issues both in public and in the House. The necessary action to address those concerns was also taken some five months before the report.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, further to the Minister's earlier Statement that no further action had to be taken, one of the recommendations made by the International Committee of the Red Cross was that hoods should no longer be used. Obviously, the Armed Forces stopped using hoods on the original recommendation. It was a very serious allegation made by the Red Cross and the MoD reacted to it. Has an investigation been undertaken into why hoods were placed over prisoners' heads in the first place? At what point did Ministers investigate whether that use of hoods was against the Geneva Convention?

Lord Bach: My Lords, directions were issued on 30 September last year that all hooding should cease. As I understand it, that was not because of representations from the ICRC at all; it was a decision taken by the Chief of Joint Operations off his own bat. It is not accurate to link that with the Red Cross report.
	Prisoners would be hooded from time to time to ensure that while the arrest process was under way the arresting officers or soldiers could sensibly divide their time between arrest procedure and general force protection, which in Iraq includes the protection of the prisoners themselves. They might also be hooded on arrest to protect their own interests in preventing future identification, because they might be considered to be future possible collaborators by fellow prisoners. It would be a temporary measure only and would be used only to achieve the safe arrest and transit of suspects.
	Hooding is not a recognised technique for interrogators. As I have said already today, it is specifically taught as an unacceptable technique at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. If there are examples of hooding, apart from on arrest, of course they will be investigated.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Boothroyd, my concern is the breakdown of reasonable relationships that were being built up between British service personnel and the Iraq people. Given what we have seen over the past few weeks and continue to see in the Daily Mirror, did the editor at any point telephone the Ministry of Defence or the Prime Minister's private office to give notice of what the newspaper was doing? This has caused me and others great concern for the lives of British troops in Iraq at present.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree entirely with the feeling behind my noble friend's question. The House probably knows by now that we understand that the photographs—the notorious photographs, I dare call them—were in the possession of the Daily Mirror for some time before it decided to publish them. The Daily Mirror was kind enough to give the Ministry of Defence some 12 hours' notice—perhaps that is a slight exaggeration, rather less than 12 hours' notice—of the fact that it was going to publish the photographs. I do not know whether phone calls were made.
	As the House will want to know, thorough and detailed investigations had been undertaken in relation to the photographs published by the Daily Mirror. These photographs are, of course, central to accusations concerning the behaviour of British troops, in particular the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. There are strong indications that the vehicle in which the photographs were taken was not in Iraq during the relevant period. Of course, additional lines of inquiry are being pursued to corroborate that. If it is right that the vehicles in which the photographs were taken were not in Iraq during the relevant period, that is a pretty fair clue as to whether these are fake or genuine photographs.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, much has been made of the US forces in Iraq using private contractors as interrogators. Can the Minister confirm that Britain does not, and will not, use private contractors for interrogation?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while there is great respect for our troops—rightly and deservedly so—the impact of the allegations that have been made is extremely serious? As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, pointed out, the allegations have had a grave effect on the reaction of the Arab world to our claims to be a society committed to democracy and the rule of law. The impact of the allegations has also put our troops in considerable danger, as is tragically indicated by the terrible events today concerning Mr Nick Berg and those of his family, who have been profoundly affected by such awful behaviour. There is a kind of slow descent into barbarism on one side, and degradation on the other.
	Given that, can the Minister say absolutely clearly that any act by our troops, or by civilians associated with the running of prisons, that breached the Geneva Convention will—as his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, promised me on 27 April in her reply—be investigated by a senior officer, be investigated without pressure from any quarter, and that the House and the country will be fully informed of the result of those investigations? I am sure that the Minister will agree that the matter is too serious to be dismissed by looking at such incidents, silly though they may be, as the enhancing or fraudulent presentation of pictures in the Daily Mirror.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I absolutely agree with what the noble Baroness has said. This is an extremely serious matter. She will know that the Government take the allegations extremely seriously. Of course, if cases are proved following proper investigation, looking after the interests of all sides involved, action will be taken against those who it is proved are responsible.
	The point about the photographs cannot be just put on one side. There is no doubt that if the cliché is right that a picture speaks a thousand words, the point of putting those photographs in the newspaper was surely to convince people that there were true allegations of wrongdoing by British troops, not by reading the scripts of the Daily Mirror, but by looking at that photograph. If the photograph is false, first, there may have been a fraud committed on the Daily Mirror, but on the other hand, and much more seriously, it almost certainly has had the effect of putting British soldiers' lives at greater risk than they already are.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the ICRC have a policy on the publication of its reports to governments, and if so, what is that policy?

Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, as I understand it, the ICRC has a policy that reports are normally kept confidential between it and the authorities to whom they are presented. That is for a pretty good reason; not just to maintain a positive working relationship between governments, but also sometimes to protect those mentioned in the reports. We would not dream of publishing an ICRC report without its express permission.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister recall the debate before the invasion of Iraq, when the view was expressed by some extremely experienced Members of this House that while the war would certainly be winnable, the peace would be a much more difficult matter? In that connection, with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war and the treatment of those detained following public order situations, what specific instructions were given by Ministers? What particular attention was paid by Ministers to those issues that were bound to arise in the course of winning the peace?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to tell the noble Lord here and now what specific instructions were given, but he can be content that Ministers across government were concerned that we should look carefully at what the position would be once conflict ended, and do our very best to ensure that we moved to a free, democratic Iraq as quickly as we could. This has proved to be a very difficult process. Ministers realised that at the time, and they realise it now. I would resent—and I am sure that this is not what the noble Lord implies—any implication that somehow Ministers did not do their duty at that time.

Lord Renton: My Lords, has the editor of the Daily Mirror conceded that the photographs that were published in the Daily Mirror were premature in relation to any offence that might have been committed in Iraq?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not believe that the editor of the Daily Mirror has conceded anything.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree, having read the full report, as I have, that any public official who took the decision not to make it known to Ministers was wrong to take that decision? Does he further agree that for our Prime Minister to negotiate with President Bush, unaware of this time bomb ticking away, would have had his position severely weakened?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with either of the propositions that the noble Lord puts forward.

Housing

Lord Lucas: rose to call attention to the review of housing supply by Kate Barker (March 2004); and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I declare an interest: I have an association with an outfit called Green Issues, which facilitates community consultation.
	I welcome the publication of the Barker review and of the counterblast to it from the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I would welcome the publication of the Egan review, if I could get a copy of it out of the Ministry. Although the Printed Paper Office asked for copies a week ago, it has yet to be given any.
	All these things are, I hope, indications that we are at last moving to address some issues of real concern and distress in the areas of housing and property development. Perhaps, over time, we are moving to achieve consensus, because that is what is needed in this area. We need the same sort of basic consensus that underlies the planning system. Of course, we all argue between parties about what the planning rules should be, but there is a basic understanding that the planning system should exist, and a basic understanding and agreement on roughly what it should do. We need to achieve the same sort of consensus in two particular areas. What sort of houses do we hope that people will live in? What importance should we attach to house price inflation?
	Some while ago, I asked a Question of the Government, and their Answer could be summarised by saying that over the past 20 years the average household is 20 per cent richer in real terms and lives in a house that is 20 per cent smaller. That is because of the vast increase in house prices. I would not wish that trend to continue. We ought to hope that, over time, our people will live in better homes. We ought to set it as an objective that in a generation's time, as far as possible, we all have better places to live in.
	We spend an awful lot of time in our homes. They are the source of a great deal of our pleasure in life, and the location of a great deal of our enjoyment of life. It matters a great deal to us what our homes are like, from the smallest to the largest. It ought to be our objective that we will have better living conditions over the years; not that our houses will become ever more valuable, but that we have a better place in which to live. That is a widely shared ambition, which is reflected in this plethora of television programmes on home improvement and self building and so on. People really care what their houses are like.
	One aspect of the Barker review that I welcome is its interest in gathering evidence about the sort of housing that people want. If we are going to set objectives for what housing should be, we ought to understand what people want. There is remarkably little evidence of that at the moment. We tend to provide on the basis of housing need, which is defined by officials. We ought to take into account the sort of housing that people want.
	The other objective that we should set ourselves—and one which is central to the Barker review—is controlling house price inflation.
	When I was young, house price inflation was seen as a wonderful thing. We could all make money out of playing with houses—and a lot of people have done so. But we are now beginning to realise that this is not an economic good, by and large. It does not create wealth, except at the fringes. It is merely a matter of wealth transfer: it transfers wealth from the young to the old; from the poor to the rich; and from pretty well everybody to estate agents and landowners. That is not the sort of policy that we should pursue.
	I welcome Kate Barker's emphasis on reducing the rate of house price inflation to something that bears some relation to the general increase in national wealth and is ideally a little below it. If we could have the rate at 1 per cent below the rate in earnings, then that would be the mechanism necessary for us all to be able to look forward to better houses and homes over time.
	I remember the hilarity in the newspapers when the Albanian pyramid scheme burst. But this is exactly the same thing. It is a pyramid scheme that we are all playing—or at least that 60 per cent of the nation are playing. We are all buying a house on an enormous mortgage in the hope that in a few years we will be able to sell it to some other sucker for rather more. It is exactly the same set of motivations and exactly the same disaster awaits us at the end of it.
	We can see the problems now in the difficulty key workers have in finding places to live in London or large parts of the countryside. We can see it in the difficulty that young people, setting out on a career newly encumbered with their student loans, have in affording places to live.
	There is no reason why this should not go on getting a great deal worse. At the height of the property boom in Japan mortgages were granted for multiple generations. People inherited a mortgage, because there was not enough time in one lifetime to pay it off. So we can get a lot further. When that bubble burst, 10 years of stagnation followed. It is not a good thing that we are getting into. If we can set out as a consensus—as an objective—that we wish to see housing inflation controlled, that would be a good basis for moving forward on future policy.
	So what should we do about it? The Barker review concentrates on housing supply. That must be part of the answer. In its document the CPRE appears to say that supply has no effect on price. Go to the bottom of the class—O-level economics starts with that kind of relationship. It cannot make that allegation and be taken seriously. Of course supply has an effect in the long term, rather than in what happens next year. The effect must be there.
	I hope that organisations such as the CPRE can return to the realms of rational debate. They have an enormously important part to play in making sure that the beauty and purity of our countryside is defended and that we do not lose that under a rash of ill-advised development.
	That does not only apply to the CPRE. The Kent Wildlife Trust—of which I have been a member for a long time, and which is usually a sensible organisation—has produced a flyer on all the new houses being built in Kent. It attributes the decline in the water vole to housing development. It also states that:
	"The river Stour could become 66% sewage"
	and that putting an extra 10,000 houses in Kent will
	"double the amount of road traffic"
	in the county. We have to have a rational debate. We need the defenders of the countryside to come down off their hysterical pillar and engage in a proper debate.
	The homes that every single one of us lives in were green fields once. How many of us will put their hands up and say that they will turn it back into one? None of us would. We must start from a basis that some development is good. It has provided us with homes. What once was woods and fields is now our houses and we are glad that that has happened.
	We in this party rightly give the Government a hard time over the way in which the grammar and public school educated Front Bench tries to pull the ladder of achievement up after it and not extend the same facilities for advancement to the poor people of today. In our party we must not commit the same crime when it comes to housing. We all live in very nice houses. If we want a future expanded population to live in nice houses too, we must allow an additional measure of house building and development. It must be part of what we wish for the future of this nation.
	Consider a field: a typical upland Hampshire field run on a rotation of barley, barley, barley, barley, barley, barley, beans; with hedges like a row of bedraggled ostriches, because they are cut thin and straight and the wind blows through them underneath. Replacing that with a proper housing development is an ecological plus. There will be much more wildlife, a greater variety of wildlife and a lot of happy people living on it. And a good deal of that countryside will look better. We have to talk sensibly. Not all our countryside is such that it has to be preserved to within an inch of our lives. We are allowed to pay some attention to what is best for our people too.
	The CPRE hopes that we will all move north: do not build in the south, build in the north. But there is no sign that the north wants us. The whole north-west has a moratorium on house building until the end of 2005. It is possible to build a house in the middle of Manchester but almost nowhere else in the north-west are people allowed to develop anything. There is no indication that they want us up there. And even the areas in which they are trying to build are being kiboshed by the changes in landfill regulations, which reduce the number of sites that will take the industrial waste that has to be cleared from many northern sites. That means that there will be no house building site of any scale in the north-west for the next two years. There is no sign that the north-west is setting out to search for people from the south.
	Is there, up there, anyway, what southerners want? Apart from sunshine—we all have a prejudice that it always rains in the north-west—if we are prepared to move up there, we want to find the standard of shop, the standard of leisure and the standard of house that we have got used to. If you try to build a house of any size in the north-west you will not get anywhere. In the north, permission will not be given to build big houses. If a company wishes to move a managing director up north, he has to wait in the queue for one of the existing houses—new ones cannot be built.
	If we are going to follow the advice of the CPRE, there has to be a real willingness in the north to take us on. Perhaps we should have a competition, and make them an offer: if they will open up room for 250,000 southerners to move north, we in the south will gather together and pay for it to happen. Faced with that bill, would we do it? The question of responding to demand in housing is not an easy one.
	If we really want to move north, it is not a question of trying to shift a few civil servants up to Tyneside. We have to move important centres of economic activity up there—something that will draw economic and business life after it. The Law Lords are in search of a new home: send them to Hull. Why not? That would move some serious jobs north. We could put Parliament in Stoke-on-Trent or send the CPRE to Rotherham. If we made that sort of move, the south would begin to squeak, because—golly—it would be starting to lose things that it valued. That is what moving to the north means—losing things that we value. That must be taken into account in the debate that the CPRE wants us to have.
	If we are to have a system that is built on consensus, we must have one that allows a good long time to think about things. There again, there is a good point in the Barker review. It suggests that local planning authorities should build up, as it were, a bank of land that, they know, will be developed in due course. If the emphasis was not on how quickly planning permission could be run through and there was a 10-year bank of land for which there was outline permission and if people knew what the plans for the future of that land were, local authorities could draw down on the land, as they decided that there was a local requirement. That would give an enormous amount of time for all the problems relating to the environment to be considered, for local consultation and for the assessment of local benefit.
	That would create plenty of opportunity to work through another of Kate Barker's suggestions that I agree with; namely, that new development should, wherever possible, bear the costs that it imposes on the rest of the community. It should not be possible just to get away with putting up a housing estate without facing the fact that that places costs on the local health service, the local transport system and the local education service. We could consider doing what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, advocated so expertly during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill—building sustainable communities. All that takes time and a lot of public consultation. If we follow the suggestion in Kate Barker's review that we should give ourselves time and allow local authorities to base their decisions on such a timescale, we will get development of better quality that will be more satisfactory in giving people what they want from property development.
	I hope that this is the beginning of consensus. I know that it begins in argument, but so does everything. When my noble friend Lady Thatcher set out to give council house tenants the right to buy their home, there was no consensus; now there is. That is a great victory. The consensus to come should be that those who now have their home will, in a generation's time, live in a better one. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the debate. He and I had several interesting and, I hope, fruitful discussions while he was Minister for construction in Mr Major's government. I never got anything out of him, but that was his loss. I should declare my usual interest: I have been involved in the construction industry for a lifetime. I should also add that I am a columnist for HouseBuilder magazine, which is owned by the House Builders Federation. They pay me, but I write what I think, not what they ask me to write. The noble Lord referred to the grammar school-educated Front Bench. I was at a comprehensive school. They were common in Scotland and have been since, I think, the time of John Knox.
	I shall begin somewhat obliquely and, perhaps, unusually by congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Prescott, who, last week, was elected honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. It is a worthy honour, but it was, I think, conferred on the basis of policy initiatives such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and on the basis of promise, rather than for actual performance in house building. As we know, we now have the lowest level of house building in this country since 1924, when Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister. That year is important to me, because that is when I was born. A lifetime has gone past, and we are back where we started.
	The shortfall, of course, is mainly in affordable housing, rather than in the private sector. Affordable housing was called council housing in my day. I shall be mildly critical, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be alarmed. The Government have had ample time, since they came to power in 1997, to improve the situation, but they have failed to do so. Several years have been wasted. I will not say that the Government have been neglectful, but they have not been terribly competent. Now, though, there is a hint from the Chancellor that something might be done. In his Budget speech a few weeks ago, he said that he and Prescott would consult on how we could increase the supply and affordability of housing and the goals that we should set, while striking the right balance between the economic and social case for development and environmental and housing needs. That is good news. We must hope that there are good results.
	In her report, Mrs Barker promotes design quality, something that John Prescott has promoted. He has produced a new measure of design quality that, I must admit, I do not wholly understand. I am a civil engineer, not an architect. He calls it the "Wow" factor. He is looking for something that he thinks to be good. He is right, but I have a word of warning for Mr Prescott: he must be wary of the Poundbury effect or the Seaview, Florida effect. I am sorry to say this, but he must keep the Prince of Wales at arm's length in looking for the "Wow" factor. He must pay more attention to the views expressed publicly and in this House by my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside.
	Rightly, Mrs Barker approached the problem as an economist. That is what she was asked to do by the Chancellor. However, on page 19 of the report, she says:
	"Increasing housing supply could also have benefits for individual and social well-being".
	I am glad that she said that, but I was bothered a bit by that comment. I should have thought that the economic advantages should not come first; the advantages to be had from an increased housing supply should be aimed at individual and social well-being. Economics used to be called the "dismal science", probably rightly.
	I turn to the danger of concreting over the countryside, as it is called by the nimbys and people such as the CPRE, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a while ago. Oddly enough, only 7.1 per cent of England is urbanised, according to the review. That is slightly less than I thought, but it means that nine-tenths of the country is not urbanised, whatever that may mean. Furthermore, just over a third of the land is protected from development.
	One of the surprises to come out of the review is the fact that the north-west, which was mentioned, is more urbanised—9.9 per cent—than the south-east— 7.8 per cent, just a bit above the national average. In addition, 60 per cent of land in the south-east is protected from development,
	"either through greenbelt status, designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty or other designated conservation or protected areas".
	That leads Mrs Barker to an interesting conclusion. She states,
	"suppose government chose to allow an additional 120,000 houses per annum—
	which she had asked for—
	"to be built over and above existing plans and that all this building were concentrated in the south east (an unlikely and undesirable event). Over the next ten years, this would mean using an additional 0.75% of the total land area of the south east, 1.92% of developable land".
	Those simple figures should blow away the wilder fears of tree huggers and people of that nature—even the CPRE—but I imagine that they will pass unnoticed. They are based on an assumption that 60 per cent of new homes would be built on brownfield sites and they include an allowance for infrastructure.
	That notion that the countryside is to be concreted over is a chimera. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said already, the pressure groups should come to terms with reality and deal with things as they are and not as they are in their wildest dreams.
	Mrs Barker is right about social housing. I have already said that it used to be called council housing. I lived in one for about 25 years. Between 1994–95 and 2002–03, the number of new social houses built for rent in England fell from nearly 43,000 to about 21,000. The review suggests that 17,000 to 23,000 additional houses should be provided each year. That is about double the existing number.
	That would be costly and I presume that it would involve some element of subsidy. It takes me back to what I said earlier about 1924. I assume that the house-building ratios in that year were the responsibility of the previous Conservative government, but in the years following MacDonald's first government—and his second one later—a considerable effort was made to provide what we now call "social housing". It was brought about largely by the Housing Act of the late John Wheatley, who was Tam Dalyell's wife's uncle. The Wheatley Acts produced council housing to an extent which ameliorated the housing problem at that time. All I shall say to Mr Prescott, whom I much admire, and to my noble friend on the Front Bench, is that if such an attitude toward housing the poor, as one might call them, was good enough for Ramsay MacDonald and John Wheatley and the Labour governments of the 1920s and even later, it is surely good enough for the Labour Government of this century.

The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I begin, as I am sure other speakers will, by thanking my noble kinsman Lord Lucas for giving us the opportunity to discuss housing supply and the Barker review. I declare an interest immediately as a landowner in the south-east and specifically as Chairman of the South-East Rural Affairs Forum. The forum advises the Government Office of the South-East on the issues which are of most concern to the rural communities in the south-east, reporting to Alun Michael. Although I cannot speak today for the forum, I admit that the issue which concerns us most in the rural communities in the affluent area of the south-east is the difficulty of providing affordable housing for those on an average wage. We have failed lamentably to do that for reasons perhaps of unimaginative planning and for reasons that the Barker review sets out; namely, lack of innovation in the building sector.
	Perhaps that is also because we have relied rigidly in the past on providing what is described as "social housing" as a cost on the taxpayer without recognising the real challenge, which is not necessarily impossible, to provide affordable housing through the market. By that I mean providing housing below the market price that would otherwise be commanded in a way which is nevertheless attractive to business or to the landowner. The Barker review touches on that. A box sets out two or three initiatives. I hope that the Minister will follow up the suggestions made there to see what opportunities are available to allow the market to address the issue of how one brings in housing stock at a price which would otherwise have to be achieved by subsidy.
	The problem at the moment is that the south-east, for example, has a draft regional housing strategy. I am referring specifically to village communities of fewer than 3,000 inhabitants. That draft strategy proposes that 720 homes should be built throughout the south-east, from Oxfordshire to Kent, over two years. That implies a cost to the social housing grant of about £40 million. If I look at my neighbours in the village where I live, in neighbouring villages and in villages elsewhere in the region, I realise that that implies an astonishing lack of commitment to the families who have lived in the villages and who have plenty of work available to them in the rural enterprises. There is simply no statistical hope that they will benefit from that modest provision.
	We need to think again about how we are going to provide affordable housing, recognising the combined pressures exerted by people wanting to live in the south-east because that is where the jobs are, by its attractive countryside and by its planning system. Those factors all add to market prices.
	At the moment, the exception sites policy—Section 106 agreements and the like—provides a measure of affordable housing, but the definition of houses that planners will normally accept as eligible for an exception site are those in receipt of a social housing grant. We then come back to limitation of the amount of grant available and it does not go very far. A more imaginative approach would be to take the Housing Corporation's total cost indicator and say that any housing whose cost was 80 per cent or lower of that total cost indicator would be eligible for the exclusion sites. Those sites would then be recognised as fulfilling a role for the rural economy by meeting the desperate need for social housing.
	The challenge would then be to provide houses at 80 per cent of what the Housing Corporation accepts as a reasonable cost. Part of the answer will be by shared ownership, because it will be in the interests of businesses, landowners and others to share part of the cost. They may not even wish to charge rent for their share. I have set up my own scheme, my own business. I declare an interest as a farmer with a shared ownership scheme. I am reasonably happy just to take the increase in equity on the share that I do not own, but I have given the right to staircase to those who live in the house. If I am bought out, that is all the better because I can recycle the money. That is one element. If rent is to be charged, the rent allowance can be used to fund that share of the ownership.
	However, the ultimate requirement of housing in rural and urban areas is to attack the high cost of building in this country. The Barker review is interesting in its analysis of why it is that we appear to have costs that are higher than some, but not all, of our neighbours, and why we are particularly unsuccessful compared to Germany, Japan, Scandinavia and other countries in breaking through on the potential of offsite manufacturing systems. Industry offers all kinds of reasons why those do not work in practice. It usually comes down to economy of scale, but Kate Barker points out trenchantly—she could have been even more forceful—that the building industry is not known for its innovative skills. There is a need for much better research and development. There is a need to take the whole problem and to copy what is happening in Germany, where large companies such as Volkswagen have invested large sums of money in offsite manufacturing systems.
	I am told, although I have to admit that I cannot substantiate it, that the costs are now likely to come in at a 25 per cent reduction from what were quoted for at British offsite manufacturing systems. That needs to be looked at carefully. They are still speculative and, of course, there are all kinds of difficulties in trying to persuade planners, neighbours, or even potential owners of the homes that what are effectively factory-built houses will be appropriate in their rural landscapes and will hold their values. It is sometimes difficult to persuade the financial services that they should be insured at a sensible rate or that mortgages should be offered. But these are issues about which we in this country appear to have a much greater hang up than in Scandinavia, Germany and certainly Japan. If we are to crack housing in this country, we simply have to take this step change and also have with it a much more enlightened planning policy.
	The reason that we have failed so many people by not providing housing stock where they need it, where the economy requires it, is because the very people in the greatest need of such housing are not in a position to make a decision. They are not on planning committees; they are not trying to protect their house values; they are not trying to meet some modern concept of what a house should look like. Just think about their grandparents or great grandparents. When they started in the village communities, they very often built their own houses; they used local materials; the houses were not smart; they might have been built to a standard that perhaps would no longer be acceptable. Nevertheless, they provided the need of that generation. Because we now enforce standards that may be appropriate for those who can afford them, we do not allow self-build homes to the extent that we should, even if we insist, as I am sure we should, that the building regulations should in no way be short circuited.
	If we are to consider low cost housing schemes, let us look again at offsite manufacturing systems, let us look at self-build, where a shell is provided, let us ensure that we crack the question of how to get high quality design using vernacular cladding materials, but, above all, let us recognise that the purpose of building houses is to meet the needs of the people who need to live in them.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I hope that Kate Barker thinks more clearly and speaks more independently of the Government on the MPC of the Bank of England than she does in this, frankly, muddled and flawed review.
	Kate Barker's analysis of housing affordability and what drives house prices misses the main point, which jumps out at you from the chart of housing completions over the past 50 years on page 125 of the report. Between 150,000 and 200,000 new houses for sale have been completed every year since the late 1950s. That total has been very stable over the past 20 years or so. But the flow of new social housing built for rent by the public sector—councils or registered social landlords—is now down to a pathetic trickle. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, pointed out in his fascinating historical excursion, it is now down to 21,000 new social houses per year. It was running at about 150,000 a year as recently as the late 1970s, certainly within my working memory, because I was a member of Oxford City Council's housing committee at the time.
	If we are serious about tackling homelessness and housing crises in the high stress areas of London and south-east England, we must deliver far more affordable housing directly at the point of need, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, illustrated so clearly and expertly in his speech. Here I must differ in emphasis with my former city colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Of course, increasing supply ultimately affects price, but so does reducing excess demand. There is not a shred of evidence that spraying estates of new executive boxes at a quarter of a million or half a million a time all over the green belts and flood plains of southern England will house key workers for our creaking public services or reduce the rate of house price rises any time soon.
	Barker's key mistake is to assume that building only new homes for sale reduces house price growth. But building new social housing meets housing demand more directly. Much of the upward pressure on house prices comes from people being forced deep into debt to buy because they can find nothing to rent. There is no surprise there, of course, because new affordable housing has dried up and so much social housing has been sold off by the governments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who I am sorry to see is no longer in her place, and her successors.
	The Barker review's proposed additional 17,000 to 23,000 social houses a year barely scratches at the surface of our affordable housing crisis, as it is called by Home Truths, backed by the Town and County Planning Association, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many other leading housing associations. Barker believes that her recommended targets of building 17,000 to 120,000 extra new private sector houses for sale a year will cut long-term real house price rises to either 1.8 per cent or 1.1 per cent a year. Frankly, the evidence for that in her report is so thin that it is almost anorexic. That, in turn, undermines Recommendation 1, that the Government should establish a market affordability goal for house prices, which should be incorporated into the public service agreement framework.
	Not content, of course, with just the national house price goal, which will be even more difficult to achieve than it is to define, Recommendation 5 goes on to say that every unelected regional planning body should,
	"set its own house price target, plus sub-regional targets, which may include floors and ceilings".
	Regional planning bodies and regional housing boards would be merged to create regional planning and housing bodies, which,
	"will be responsible for managing regional housing markets delivering the regions' affordability target . . . and will continue to be responsible for the Regional Spatial Strategy".
	The regional planning executive would, of course,
	"require new appointments, including a chief executive".
	That involves building bureaucracy, not houses. These new regional housing commissars could no more set regional house prices, let alone sub-regional floors and ceilings, than King Canute could stop the tide coming in.
	Picture yourself as the chief executive of the new RPHB in York or Nottingham, watching house prices rise in your region by 50 per cent over the past year. What would you have done—torn up your house price target, changed your sub-regional price ceilings into floors or rung the Governor of the Bank of England, begging him to put up interest rates? Recommendations such as these are for the birds. They cut right across the grain of how markets work and they override democratically elected local authorities. For instance, we read in the report that within the current institutional framework at the regional level, no organisation has overall ownership of the regional housing market. Of course it does not; millions of individuals own it. No serious economist would ever write a sloppy sentence such as that.
	Also, sadly, Barker has been nobbled by the Treasury in her refusal to end the nonsense of a 0 per cent VAT rate on new building, compared with a crippling 17.5 per cent rate on the reconstruction, renovation and improvement of existing homes. That is very interesting, because her report actually makes a very powerful case for applying VAT to newly built homes on greenfield sites. It says that it has credibility, would correct the distortion between new build and repairs, maintenance and improvement, would create a more efficient market for housing resources, and would enable the wider community to use VAT to share in development gain without undermining the ability of most landowners to prosper from land sales for residential use. Wise words, backing a long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment.
	Why then do we suddenly get a screeching U-turn worthy of Tony Blair over the referendum? "No equalising of VAT rates after all", says Barker—"let's try a planning gain supplement". However worthy in principle, that to me looks like some of the 1976 development land tax, the 1973 development gains tax, the 1967 betterment levy or the 1947 development charge. Politicians love ideas such as those, but property professionals have grave doubts about whether they will work any better than their predecessors, when land owners just sat on the land and the system seized up.
	By contrast, VAT at, say, 5 per cent on new housing is simple, straight forward, fair, impossible to evade and easy to collect. Indeed, in the section of the report that Barker, rather than the Treasury, wrote before the U-turn, she confirmed that levying VAT on newly built housing would have little direct impact on house prices and would lead to a reduction in land prices, and that,
	"it would have the desired effect of extracting some of the development gain associated with land sale for housing development".
	Some three and a half years ago I made the case for equalising VAT rates in this House. I received an encouraging and revealing response from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He called the present distortion,
	"undoubtedly a significant perceived disincentive to refurbishment . . . However, at the end of the day, these are matters for the Chancellor . . . No doubt the taxation issue can be referred to at a later stage".—Official Report, 17/10/00; col. 970.]
	We have reached the later stage; some three-and-a-half years on, we are no further forward. When will the Treasury lift its dead hand blocking this long overdue reform?
	So VAT reform would help to bring unfit empty houses back into use. In total, there is not a housing shortage in this country. The problem is that too many of our houses are in the wrong condition, at the wrong rent or price, and in the wrong place. VAT reform would provide a major boost to social house building for rent and thus attack the crisis in affordable housing and help to keep prices down.
	Most important of all, the Government must pursue a much more vigorous policy to promote economic growth, jobs and therefore housing demand in our less prosperous and less overcrowded regions. Building new towns all over southern England only reinforces regional inequality and makes overheating down here worse. Northern and Midlands cities have plenty of cheap housing, plenty of cheap office space, and the skilled staff to take far more government jobs for a start. Members on these Benches have already proposed in all seriousness to move a substantial chunk of the Treasury's operations to Liverpool. Why not follow that by moving most of our swollen Home Office head office to Newcastle? Some 1,300 Home Office civil servants say that they must have daily access to Ministers and Parliament. What rot. Why, for example, does the Prison Service need to have its headquarters in London? In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whom I thank for his interesting speech, this is not a question of moving bodily a quarter of a million people from southern England up north, but of stopping the steady drift of jobs, money and people down south—or at least trying to reverse the trend.
	I believe that the Barker review is a great opportunity sadly missed. It is now time for the Government to act on the areas under their own direct control—VAT reform, far more social and affordable housing, and jobs to move out of London and the south-east to where they are desperately needed in the regions.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I start by expressing my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lucas for instigating this important debate on one of the most pressing subjects faced by this country at the moment. I do not profess to be a great expert on these matters and I am conscious that I shall be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who certainly is an expert. He has probably forgotten more about the subject of housing than I have ever known. But I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about housing needs in rural areas, in particular in the smaller and more remote villages of England and Wales. This is a subject which I think was largely ignored in the Barker report.
	I start by declaring my interest as a landowner. As such, no one is more acutely aware than I of the need to protect rural Britain from the ravages of inappropriate development. However, the countryside cannot stagnate, and a recent report produced by the Country Land and Business Association on housing and the rural economy concluded that the current planning policies are neglecting the growing crisis in housing in rural areas, particularly in villages in the wider countryside, and that the problems of affordable housing cannot be addressed in isolation from the insufficient supply of housing as a whole.
	That last point is important because I think it means that the difficulty faced by local people, including key workers, to whom my noble friend quite rightly referred, is that they are not able to compete financially with outside forces. It is also a question of a lack of houses in general. The report stresses the need for an increase in the supply of all types of houses in order to help reduce the pressure.
	Of course, building under any circumstances is an emotive subject, particularly so in the more remote rural areas because of the perceived visual impact on the countryside. However, I believe that there are good examples which demonstrate that with intelligent thought and good design reflecting traditional local styles, not only can new housing blend into the local landscape without causing offence, but if it is done really well, it can be a positive enhancement.
	The rural economy is as important as any other sector of the economy in this country. It does not deserve to be abandoned. A well-managed countryside depends on a vibrant economy, and an adequate supply of housing is an essential ingredient to achieving such a goal, a point acknowledged by Kate Barker in her report. Moreover, given the changing face of agriculture and the need for rural enterprise to expand into alternative ideas, a more pragmatic approach needs to be adopted by planners towards the re-use of redundant agricultural and commercial buildings in rural areas. When such locations are close to public services, I suggest that there is no reason why judicious plans combining commercial and residential use would not be appropriate. To that end, I believe that there is a case to be made for the definition of brownfield sites to be extended to include land supporting buildings previously used for agricultural purposes.
	Notwithstanding the need for a general increase in the supply of housing in rural areas, the greatest problem lies in the shortage of affordable housing, a point already identified by several noble Lords. This has been brought about by the lack of supply and the ever-increasing demand from people living away from rural areas to pursue what might be described as the countryside idyll.
	There is also much talk of key workers. But the category does not apply only to doctors, nurses and teachers; that is, those working in the public sector. Workers in the private sector are equally important in their own way and their contribution to the local rural economy and the well-being of the countryside is essential. Here I refer to farm workers, plumbers, electricians, gamekeepers, forestry workers and the like.
	The Countryside Agency has estimated that an additional 10,000 new houses are required per annum in settlements of under 10,000 people. Yet I believe that Housing Corporation finance is budgeted to supply only 1,750 start-up homes in rural settlements of under 3,000 inhabitants. I appreciate that the two figures do not compare exactly, but it is clear that there is likely to continue to be a severe shortage while lack of finance continues to act as a major restriction on the provision of sufficient affordable housing to meet the needs of the smaller settlements of this country.
	However, affordable housing in smaller rural settlements is generally uneconomic unless the land is made available at price levels significantly below the market value. That requires some degree of subsidy either on the rent or through shared equity. One solution is to consider what landowners themselves can do to bridge the gap between affordable housing and key local employees. In the absence of available land there will be no housing, so it would seem logical to try to encourage the release of land to meet such demand.
	I feel certain that, if encouraged, landowners would be willing to provide land for affordable housing provided that it was understood that such dwellings would be occupied by people who play a key role in the local community in either the public or the private sector. Unlike a speculative developer, I am sure that the local landowner would be prepared to accept a figure well below the open market development land value, provided—and this, I believe, is key—that those houses were retained for their original purpose and not allowed to fall on to the open market. Such properties could be rented out or sold using shared equity as described by my noble friend Lord Selborne.
	I now raise the subject of exception sites, as defined in the 1992 national planning policy. The CLA in its housing report, to which I have already referred, has strongly argued the case for the retention of such a mechanism. It says that exception sites should be used more imaginatively by planners, using Section 106 agreements to provide more affordable housing. It goes on to say that the allocated quota site approach has not worked for smaller settlements because it paralyses development, whereas exception sites allow local authorities to find the right site and to negotiate an appropriate land price with the landowner concerned, thus going a long way to reducing the call on the public purse.
	Many, if not most, affordable housing schemes in remoter areas have been achieved through the use of the exception site mechanism. So I hope that the Minister can give the House an assurance that this scheme will not be compromised. I also suggest that the use of exception sites concurs with Recommendation 9 of the Barker report which calls for local plans to be more realistic in their initial allocation of land and more flexible in bringing forward additional land for development.
	I suggest that the combination of encouraging landowners to release small pockets of land at reduced rates for the purpose of housing key community employees, in both the public and private sectors, along with the flexible use of exception sites, should help towards easing, in a modest way, the housing needs in the remoter rural areas. It is often suggested that building in villages is unsustainable through lack of services, but the shortage of houses for local people is making communities unsustainable, resulting in additional travel, usually by car, with all the obvious consequences.

Lord Best: My Lords, I declare my interests as chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which undertakes a continuous programme of research on housing matters, with a long list of reports on housing supply to which references are made in Kate Barker's review, and as chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust which tackles problems of housing supply, in particular in relation to affordable homes, and which is currently planning a sustainable new community as an urban extension to the city of York.
	I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward this debate on a subject that is now near the top of the political agenda. I am deeply appreciative of the hard work and skill that Kate Barker has applied to her task and which I have witnessed first hand at a number of meetings with her and her colleagues. I think a word of appreciation should also go to the Chancellor for commissioning the review in the knowledge that it would be bound to put pressure on the Government to address the problem of inadequate housing production and the requirement for more support from the Treasury.
	From the many recent reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on the issues raised in the Barker review, I thought it might add most to the debate if I drew upon the findings from three new studies which we shall be publishing in June. The first research project that I want to cite is currently being concluded by Professor Steve Wilcox of York University. It looks at the facts on affordability—who can afford to buy a home and who is left out. The Barker review explained the position nationally: only 37 per cent of new households could afford to buy in 2002 compared with 46 per cent of new households in the late 1980s. The number of homes bought by first-time buyers has declined markedly, even though at least as many people aspire to home ownership as ever before. As Kate Barker puts it,
	"this brings potential for an ever widening social and economic divide between those able to access market housing and those kept out".
	Steve Wilcox first demonstrated, on the basis of 1998 house prices and incomes, that it was not just in London and the south-east that home ownership was beyond the reach of many new households. As incomes may be relatively lower in relation to house prices in some other places—for example, in the south-west and in other rural areas—affordability was just as great a problem there as in the over-heated London and south-east regions. Now this evidence has been updated to 2003 and—this comes as a surprise to no one—it is clear that the problem of affordability has worsened dramatically and more areas are seriously affected.
	The tip of the iceberg is the rise in homelessness. Thank goodness that no longer leads to families being placed in unsavoury bed-and-breakfast accommodation because of sterling efforts by the Government and local authorities to use privately rented accommodation instead. But the B-and-B success story is at the expense of other groups who can no longer rent the same private property. Unless the supply of affordable homes is addressed, the misery is just moved around. Shortages of affordable housing destroy quality of life for more households than those declared homeless by local authorities—those forced to share into middle age; those in miserable, over-crowded flats; and those who have a two-hour commute that ruins family life.
	Steve Wilcox's latest research illustrates the extent of the affordability problem. In 100 local authority areas working households with average incomes now need a mortgage of five times their earnings to buy the average house. In places like Penwith in Cornwall, south Lakeland in the Lake District, and east Devon, as well as in Westminster and Islington, those on average earnings need a mortgage of over seven times their income, which is clearly impossible.
	The second piece of work commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention relates to the position of parents. While all of us homeowners may feel a warm glow from the increasing value of our home—even if we think current figures are unrealistic in the longer term—those of us who are homeowners with children are coming to recognise that high house prices are not quite such good news after all. We asked MORI to do a poll for us to determine how parents with adult children are being affected by the problems of affordability.
	The MORI poll shows how more and more parents will need to dip into their own pockets to support the next generation in meeting current levels of house prices. Two-thirds of those with adult children under 30 are affected. That takes no account of the impact of bigger student loans in the future. Parents of such adult children who have not yet purchased overwhelmingly believe that their children will want to do so, but over half of the parents feel that it is unlikely that their children will be able to buy without parental support. Although three-quarters of these parents would be willing to help, only half of them will have the resources to do so. Parents reckon that each of their children will need an average of £17,000. To raise that money a fifth of parents thought it likely that they would need to borrow themselves—for example, by remortgaging their own house. More than half of the parents fear that without parental funding their adult children will never be able to buy.
	It may help to change hostile attitudes towards new housebuilding as more homeowners recognise that just when they might be finishing with their own mortgage, they may be forced to borrow again to help out the next generation; or, at least, be required to give away much of any capital they have saved.
	This brings me to a third piece of work supported by the foundation and undertaken by the Cambridge Architectural Research organisation. This report, which will be released next month, looks at public attitudes to new homes and has tested the notion that "we are all nimbys now". The study involved interviews with over 1,400 people in areas of potential growth in the south-east and discovered that, when faced with reasoned argument, opposition to new housing was not universal or total. Consultation can work; people make reasoned choices and compromises if presented with information about a range of options. They are prepared to see development on open land, not just on brownfield sites. Mostly they agreed that the region must be allowed to grow. While they remained opposed to the thought that many more homes should be built, there were clear worries about the shortages of affordable housing.
	Of course, rational and sensible public views in relation to a region or city may not hold good when it comes to the potential development of the site next door. I have been shocked at the level of opposition to our proposals for creating a sustainable new community on the edge of York. This is intended as a model in terms of design, traffic calming and accessibility; an integrated mix of renting, part owning and owning; and with heavy expenditure on environmental aspects. But, despite 36 local consultative meetings, those who live nearby have had exaggerated fears and misapprehensions about the consequences of any such development.
	This case, in microcosm, reveals the pressures that vocal opponents of new housing bring to bear upon local councillors. There is a democratic deficit in that those people who will be delighted to occupy this new community in the future are not yet in a position to make their views known. Clear and forward looking local leadership can be hard to exercise—although we detect it in York—in the context of the constant round of local elections, particularly where the strength of the political parties is finely balanced. To me, this suggests more decision taking at the more distant regional level, rather than expecting sensible local councillors to incur the wrath of their electorate if they speak in favour of new housing.
	Having indicated that research in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's pipeline underlines a picture of worsening affordability, of new pressures on the parents of those in their twenties and of the importance of local opinion, perhaps I may end with two conclusions.
	First, the problem of an inadequate supply of affordable homes can be addressed only by more supply. It cannot be overcome by paying subsidies to special groups. If subsidised mortgages are made available to nurses or teachers—as with the starter homes initiative—these worthy people may be able to outbid others in the market place. But if there is no increase in the number of homes, the extra cash will pour fuel on the flames and simply push up the prices of existing homes beyond the reach of other people. The taxpayers' money needs to be used to increase supply, and that suggests targeting grants on the production line of the registered social landlords—the housing associations.
	As Kate Barker has made clear, it is not a decline of private sector house building that has reduced housing output to the levels of the 1920s despite rising household numbers; it is, as other noble Lords have emphasised, the reduction in grant-aided housing—homes previously built by local authorities and now by housing associations.
	Kate Barker estimates that it will cost perhaps another £1.5 billion each year to increase sufficiently the output of subsidised or affordable housing—with, of course, the new homes pepper-potted among owner-occupied housing, not put into segregated ghettos. This call for funding is an uncomfortable reality but it is one which the Chancellor really must address in this summer's spending review.
	My concluding point is that the private renting sector also deserves a boost. The current buy-to-let lending boom— with nearly £40 billion of loans now going mostly to new small landlords—represents only additional demand for existing property, not the commissioning of a supply of extra homes. The Chancellor is looking at the opportunities for property investment funds—which could bring in new money and an increase in new supply—and we need to address that issue.
	I greatly welcome Kate Barker's excellent review. I hope that it will lead us into addressing one of the great challenges still facing this country.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for giving the House the opportunity to debate Kate Barker's report. Whether we agree with all of it or disagree with all of it, we at least have a chance to consider it fully. I hope that our discussions today will move the debate forward. With its 36 recommendations, the report challenges many long-held views. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to allocate parliamentary time for a full debate on it and so I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for introducing the subject today.
	In her introduction, Kate Barker stated that in 2001 the construction of new houses fell to its lowest level since the Second World War and that fewer were built than in 1924. Over the 10-year period to 2002, the output of new homes was 12.5 per cent lower than in the previous 10 years. That is a worrying figure.
	Builders will argue that planning permission is not being granted and cite the strength of local opposition to new house builds. This argument has been reflected in the Chamber today. Others will explain the fall in numbers by quoting the perception that most of the houses being built are large and often detached. But the House Builders Federation representative to whom I spoke yesterday gave an example of what pressure can do. In the south-east in 1997, 47 per cent of dwellings constructed were detached and only 15 per cent were flats; in 2003, the proportion was 19 per cent detached and 47 per cent flats. The remaining build was a mixture of bungalows and semi-detached and terraced housing. Can the Minister comment on the reasons for these figures?
	Does the Minister believe that we will have enough skilled trades people available if we decide upon a large increase in house build? Does he accept the report's suggestion that perhaps three out of every 100 employees should be apprentices? If so, how do the Government envisage moving forward with that proposal?
	Kate Barker suggests that we should build our way out of the supply shortage. If, however, only 1 per cent of the houses required are built every year, it will take decades before the shortage is overcome. It is also true that, since the fall in the value of stocks and shares, many people have turned to investing in the housing market, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred. The buy-to-rent sector has grown, but will it continue to thrive? It will do so only as long as sufficient demand exists for rented accommodation. So the balance between the rented and owned sectors is interlinked.
	Are the Government's figures on the demand for new houses based on people's preferences, or are they an accurate measurement of the number of people who lack their own homes, whether rented or purchased? Can he explain how predicted growth demand is factored in and whether the drop of 1 million in the 2001 census figures has yet been reflected in the new housing total requirement?
	I turn now to consider the issues of brownfield sites and empty homes. The Government are to be congratulated on the work they have carried out towards the use of brownfield sites. However, I understand that there are still some 650,000 hectares of brownfield land available, of which 11 per cent is immediately suitable for housing development. Can the Minister confirm these figures? Can he say, either by department or in total, how much unused land is held by government bodies such as the MoD, the NHS and other public institutions? Such information would help inform our debate today.
	I believe that there are some 718,000 houses standing empty. A large number of these reflect the problems that some councils have in filling their properties quickly once they become vacant; others belong to people who seem to prefer to live elsewhere; and, of course, some belong to elderly people who have had to move into sheltered or residential accommodation. What research has been undertaken to ensure that sufficient and relevant housing will be available in the future, having regard, in particular, to the likely increase in the number of single elderly people which is forecast over the next 10 years?
	Do the Government agree that one of the major difficulties for new house build lies in the granting of planning permission, a matter to which I referred earlier? What is the latest total for land with full or outline planning permission held by local councils or by developers and builders? Do the Government agree with the recommendation that regional planning bodies and regional housing boards should be amalgamated? If so, will the Minister explain how the new body will enable more housing to be built? For instance, will it impose new building sites on rural and urban communities where planning permission has previously been refused, or will the new body be yet another additional costly layer of bureaucracy?
	Does the Minister accept that there should be a proper assessment of the current situation whereby we have surplus houses in the wrong place while in other areas we are desperately short of affordable houses?
	So far I have not mentioned the newer types of housing construction. Several larger companies have been quietly investing in houses that are built in factories before they are put on site. These are engineered to a high standard of insulation, energy efficiency and the use of materials which have a less unfavourable impact on the environment. They are manufactured in factories and then conveyed to the site. I understand that a layer of bricks or wood panelling may then be added to the shell so that they look like a traditional house. Other noble Lords have touched on that area, which offers great possibilities.
	I declare an interest. My family owns property in Suffolk. We have sold land for affordable social housing to be built. We are very happy to support that. The land we sold to the local authority now houses many families. It is then hard, as my noble friend Lord Peel said, when one applies to convert other buildings for either business or other purposes to be turned down by that same council, which says that it is not relevant.
	The Government need to allow a degree of flexibility to local communities to encourage the take up of what I would call "practical workings". Here I should like to give the Minister an example. Two days ago a councillor from south Shropshire came to see me. His council's survey shows that 1,435 new affordable build homes are needed in his district, but the county structure plan allocates it only 18 new houses, of whatever type, per annum until 2011.
	Clearly, that is a mismatch. So the council has taken the bull by the horns and launched a joint venture between the district council and the private sector to develop a balanced portfolio of market and affordable homes. Has that come within the Minister's portfolio at this stage, or is it a new innovation about which he knows nothing? It makes sense where there is permission to build ordinary private houses for sale and there is a willingness to include affordable housing.
	I understand that the houses are limited in price. When a person sells the house its price can be raised only by an amount related to the average value of property in that area. So it would be retained and not lost as affordable housing. I think that is a good example.
	Do the Government have a role in encouraging such new developments? Do they continue to support building research? Are they contributing to work designed to reduce demand on water supplies, to improve the efficiency of water storage, particularly the reduction of evaporation in the face of climate change and to lessen the impact of dwellings on the environment, or does the Minister think that that should be left to the private sector?
	What work are the Government commissioning or carrying out to establish the housing requirements in the next two decades? I am particularly concerned that we should not find ourselves once again faced with a situation in which older people living in large houses which they cannot afford to maintain find there are no smaller houses in the area to which they can move.
	House affordability in rural areas is increasingly worrying. Several noble Lords have spoken of that. If we do not have enough affordable houses in those areas the communities die. As services are increasingly centralised, there are fewer GPs' surgeries in the villages, fewer rural post offices and a steep fall in the number and scope of village shops. Strong, supportive communities need to be encouraged. All that depends on the accessibility of affordable houses.
	This afternoon's important debate raises huge issues. I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to consider them. I hope the Government will take up the challenge and that the Minister will respond directly to some of the questions raised this afternoon.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for giving us the opportunity to debate these immensely important issues. It is an appropriate tribute to Kate Barker and her colleagues that we are assembled to spend time on a report that sheds light on many of the complex issues that surround this area.
	I want to make four points in the debate. The four points may seem disparate but in fact they are linked together by two things: first, they concern planning and regulation; and, secondly, they require for their proper treatment that holy grail of politics—inter-departmental co-operation, what perhaps in headier days was called "joined-up government".
	I shall introduce my first point by mentioning a novel that I thoroughly enjoyed and approved of in my fairly early youth. It is a novel by David Lodge called Changing Places. In it, which is a satirical account of British and American universities, there is an exchange of places by two professors. The one from California, from the University of Euphoria—typically and perhaps illusorily named—came to the rather less illusive University of Brummidge in the Midlands. On the first morning of his stay near the University of Brummidge the professor in question woke up in a panic; he thought he had caught fire because he thought he saw smoke above his bed. In fact, it was his breath condensing in the air. He had not realised that in Britain we do not yet know how to regulate the temperature of houses. Things have not got significantly better. We have got better at pumping heat into houses, but of course a great deal of that simply heats the local environment.
	My first point really is a request. There is the prospect of a significant increase in building, as envisaged in the Barker report and certainly in the comments of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, at Thames Gateway and around the country over the next 10 to 15 years. This is an opportunity to change building regulations to ensure that much higher standards of energy efficiency are built into the houses that we would like to see available for all sectors of the community. The first point concerns that kind of regulation. Are the Government paying any attention to this issue? Granted that very many new houses will be built over a comparatively short period, it is a chance to move the whole debate ahead and, indeed, to change the character of some of the energy needs of the community in which we live. It is a very important issue.
	My second point concerns how the design of houses will affect the use to which the houses are put and their suitability. I pay tribute in passing to the Rowntree Trust and its Hartrigg Oaks Scheme, which is specially designed for older people who might have care needs in the future. I shall not go into detail, but it is an immensely important example of how, in this country at least, some agencies are trying to deal with the needs of the elderly, potentially frail and, indeed more broadly, the disabled. My plea is again a request to ask whether further guidance might be issued, particularly about one aspect. If you have a potentially frail person in your family—and we are all frail in one sense or another—there are two ways of trying to deal with it: first, by making arrangements for proper care home supervision; and, secondly, and much the preferred way for virtually everyone asked, by enabling people to stay in their own homes.
	The technology infrastructure of homes will make this more possible and more likely if we pay attention to it now at a national level. This infrastructure, creating the possibility of so-called smart homes, makes possible an extension of life that is tolerable and acceptable to many who otherwise would need complex care arrangements to be made in homes and possibly even in hospitals. My second question to the Minister relates to inter-departmental planning, co-operation and discussion. What opportunities does he envisage for taking that discussion forward if so many new houses are to be built? How will the elderly and potentially frail be integrated into the new communities that will be built up as very large numbers of houses are completed?
	In relation to my third and fourth questions, I declare an interest as chairman of the Quarry Products Association. This, initially, has to do with rather important planning matters. The Barker report properly spends a lot of time on planning issues. However, planning is not simply for houses and land; it also concerns the materials used to build the houses. Of course, there are marvellous ways in which we can use new technology, but even the infrastructure in which houses are set requires large amounts of quarried material.
	The quarry industry is sadly not a popular industry. That is a great mistake because civilisation is built out of holes in the ground. That is also true of houses. Unless there is sufficient adequacy in the planning horizon for the quarrying and extraction of relevant materials, whatever plans you have there will not be sufficient houses or they will be built at great cost by importing materials from far afield with the appropriate transport costs.
	There are two aspects to this issue. One is that 15-year planning horizons for quarry extraction are currently being set. Have these planning horizons been set in the light of the demand potentially created by the statements from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and from the Barker report? If not, they may have to be looked at again. To have planning for houses means land, but it also means the material dug from holes in the ground. I simply ask whether the inter-departmental consideration necessary for that is being given?
	The second aspect of this issue of planning relates to a point that I raised in Questions when the statement by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was made about the huge need for new houses. Many of these houses will be built—whether we like it or not—in fairly congested areas in the south-east. That is simply a fact. That is where many of the brown field sites are and that is where the Thames Gateway is. If that is so, large quantities of material will have to be taken into the building sites and probably detritus and debris will have to be taken out of them. If we have a horizon of 10 or 15 years when these houses are to be built, we could actually sit down now and think about how this is to be done. Are we siting the planning permissions for quarries sufficiently near the potential development sites? That reduces the cost of transport significantly, and the cost of a tonne of aggregate will vary according to the transport involved.
	Equally, are we preparing the infrastructure that will take this vast volume of material—the ODPM was talking about 400,000 to 500,000 houses—often through pleasant rural areas and possibly through congested city and town areas? To do that effectively requires one to think in advance about the right routes, whether we have the rail track that will increase the efficiency of this operation and what the possibilities are of bringing much of this material close to the development sites by sea. Of course, that is an increasing factor now. Material is brought by sea into the Thames Estuary from all along the south coast of England.
	These issues require planning. On a related point, at this very moment a discussion is going on elsewhere, in a public meeting in these Houses, about marine dredging. This is a key element of how we supply the material necessary. What thought is being given to ensure that the material available through marine dredging and from more traditional quarrying sites is going to be available? Can it be transported into the building sites in a way that will ensure maximum efficiency, economic saving, and the best treatment of the environment that such a development could tolerate?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. One of my professors at the Harvard Business School came to teach in London one summer and after he had been staying at a hotel in central London for about a fortnight, we asked him to lunch. We asked how he was finding the hotel and he said, "Peter, my experience after 10 days is that all toast in the United Kingdom is manufactured in Birmingham and shipped out during the night".
	I also echo the noble Lord's argument for anticipation at a national level. From my own constituency experience, I have found that immigrants frequently need houses with more bedrooms because their families are larger. Unless thought is given in advance, we will have a conflict thereafter.
	It is a privilege to come in at the Back Bench tail of so worthwhile a debate. I am proud that my party should have provided alternate speakers in the debate so far, and will continue to do so until the end. It is a matter of narrower pride too, that both today's debates have been or will be opened by Balliol men. As one who has the same college loyalty, I quote the observation of Philip Guedalla, a man similarly blessed or afflicted:
	"Life is just one damn Balliol man after another".
	I congratulate my noble—and Balliolian—friend Lord Lucas on the admirable manner in which he set us on our way. Batting much lower in the order leaves much less to say or need to say it.
	That is, however, in many ways a comfort. Though my late noble kinsman was for four years Minister of Housing and Local Government in days when that was a Cabinet title, and though he chaired a series of committees on housing matters set out by Aneurin Bevan, when the latter had the housing responsibility in Cabinet—thus demonstrating a bipartisan attitude—I have inherited my late noble kinsman's interest but not his knowledge. I am therefore not remotely qualified to comment in the round on Kate Barker's magnum opus in the way the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Best, variously did. I hope that noble Lords will forgive some more random comments.
	I understand the Government's rationale in setting up the review, and I also congratulate the Chancellor. There is no question but that the review provides us with a quarry. I appreciate that the revisiting of PPG3 does not meet with universal approval, but I have always admired the Duke of Wellington's conclusion that his victory at Waterloo was because his battle plans had a leather harness, whereas Bonaparte's had an iron one.
	I realise the scale of the nation's task in future housing provision, and I recognise the implications for the Government of that. Incidentally, I am interested in how we are performing in relation to our brownfield targets. That was a salient issue both before and after 1997 and was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. Could the Minister add a word or two about the comparative density of population in England and Wales within the European Union?
	I appreciate that a task on this scale requires a road map, and a wide-ranging one. However, I will acknowledge one apprehension. The road map, like the attitude of the UGC and HEFCE towards universities, can become unduly formulaic. A fortnight ago, we debated London, with the same Minister winding up. I believe passionately in mixed communities. I recognise this objective came under Kate Barker's scrutiny, but successful mixed communities evolve rather than leap fully formed from the head of Pallas Athene, the goddess of wisdom.
	Taking examples from both town and country, I had 15 wards in my prior inner city constituency, and I live on a lane in the country which is a sub-hamlet of six houses within a dispersed hamlet of 90 souls. In those 15 wards, there were many good examples of mixed communities, as there were bound to be in a seat among the richest in the country, but also 48th in terms of the poverty indices on a national basis. I take in particular two contrasting examples: Pimlico and Soho.
	Pimlico was the more recent, designed largely by Cubitt in the 19th century, on a grid pattern on the marshy farmlands near the river which the heiress Mary Davies—the eponymous origin of Davies Street in Mayfair—brought as her dowry on marriage into the Grosvenor family 1653. Suitably for a ducal estate—although the Pimlico element had to be sold in 1953 to meet death duties—Pimlico is a largely residential community, where duke and dustman really do live side by side, assisted by Peabody housing which conforms to the same grid pattern that Cubitt created. Working-class families in Pimlico and its perimeter often go back at least four generations, and I disagreed with Dame Shirley Porter on their role in society.
	Soho is different. Its origins go back before Mary Davies' marriage in 1653. It was always a manufacturing and trading community, and is also on a grid pattern. In 1685 there were 16 churches for Huguenot worship in Soho. Those working there lived there. Thanks to determined community resistance, which included some small light industry, the demolition of the 18th-century terrace houses was resisted in the 1970s, and the community likewise curbed the expansion of the sex industry. Twenty times as many people work there now as live there, but the alliance between the two sides of the community—residential and commercial—lives on, ironically threatened only by the licensed and entertainment trades that are the subject of the next debate.
	In the country, my lane comprises: the manor house lived in by a retired industrialist; a bungalow lived in by a man who largely works from home; a house using old materials on the site of an 18th-century farmhouse, rebuilt by a master craftsman cum artist and his German wife; another bungalow lived in by our immediate neighbour, a retired and partially disabled agricultural labourer and the oldest person in the hamlet to have been born there; a small, handsome stone house let to a London family who come there occasionally and who, at a critical moment, betrayed unfamiliarity with the constraints that the foot and mouth regulations had imposed on the countryside; and ourselves, in a property accurately described by the vendor's agent as,
	"a 17th-century shepherd's cottage, interestingly extended".
	We all know each other; we talk to each other, although we necessarily see less of the London family; we help solve each other's problems; and we exchange periodic hospitality. That mixture is induced not by statute but by housing history and human contiguity two miles from the nearest shop.
	Those three communities are all different, both in history and social admixture, but they are all admirable. I shall be happy to be cured of my formulaic apprehensions, but England will be poorer if that social richness becomes diluted or diminished were we to become too formulaic. I refer to England because an ODPM Minister recently deflected a Welsh question I asked outside this Chamber on the grounds that the ODPM had no responsibility for the subject of my question.
	My concentration on mixed communities also necessarily springs from a preoccupation with affordable housing. Matthew Parris once based one of his parliamentary sketches on linking Tam Dalyell MP, now the father of the House in another place, with myself as dinosaurs. I forget which of Mr Dalyell's hobby-horses provoked the sobriquet, but in my case it was inner-city affordable housing for key workers. The Minister will probably be aware of the pro forma analysis organised by the National Housing Federation of 36 relevant recommendations in Kate Barker's review in relation to affordable housing. It has the Government's response in one column and the National Housing Federation's reaction in the next one, followed by appendix B, which takes issue with Kate Barker's calculation of the need for affordable housing. I am not qualified to pass judgment on the differences between the NHF and Kate Barker, although intuition and instinct direct me to the figures that come between the two. Any comments that the Minister might care to make on their differences would be welcome.
	Although my interest in affordable housing was originally prompted by urban constituency considerations, I was at school with the late Derek Smith, a successful farmer who, in retirement, founded the charity organisation ViRSA in response to a variety of aspects of rural deprivation, including village shops, housing and rural employment.
	I would also be interested in any comment by the Minister on the National Housing Federation's separate observation that there has been no earlier response from the Government on recommendations for selective green-belt release and changes to the operation of the sequential test for land release. I should perhaps add that, although I still savour the Deputy Prime Minister's famous boast in the early stages of the previous Parliament that the green belt was the achievement of a Labour government and that the present Government intended to build on it, I recognise that the jury is still out on his real intentions.
	Like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am sorry not have had access to the Egan paper, not least because of my admiration for the author's background and interest in such important matters, which are, of course, paralleled by the same qualities in Stuart Lipton, the chairman of CABE. Anything that the Minister can say on that will be helpful, as well as on guidance to the availability of the Egan paper. I think that I am echoing my noble friend Lady Byford in saying that I hope very much that this will not be our last debate on this exceptionally important subject.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this important debate. I must declare an interest as a landowner in the south-east.
	I read Kate Barker's report and recommendations with interest and broad agreement. There is one issue, however, to which I believe that she has given insufficient emphasis. It was touched on just now by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and is the extent to which the enforcement of green-belt designation has been and remains a major contribution to the supply of housing. That is particularly so in the south-east where, as the report acknowledges at paragraph 1.45, 60 per cent of available land is protected by green-belt or other conservation designation.
	We all understand and value the reasons for green-belt designation, but it is a blanket designation. It is quite clear that not all land subject to green-belt designation is of equal value in conservation terms. On many parcels of land within the green belt, appropriately designed and conceived development would have zero detrimental effect on the environment—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested, could often improve it, as the natural development of our villages and hamlets has done over the centuries.
	PPG2 on green belts allows for a concept of "safeguarded land" or "white land", which is land between urban areas and the green belt that, to quote from its paragraph 2.12,
	"may be required to meet longer-term development needs".
	The Government should allow landowners to submit to their local or regional planning authorities any areas in their possession in the green belt that they believe might be designated as white land or under some new terminology, on the grounds that suitable development on those sites would present no detriment to the wider green belt while contributing to the supply of housing, including of course, most importantly, locally needed affordable housing. In the report, paragraph 2.42 and recommendation 10 at least acknowledge the problem and call for planning authorities to show greater flexibility in using their existing powers to change green-belt designation.

Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak as briefly as possible in the gap. I want to make only two points. First, I refer to the issue mentioned by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott concerning the possibility of a lower rate of VAT on refurbishment of homes. In France, where the standard rate of VAT is 19.4 per cent, the VAT rate for all home refurbishment is 5.5 per cent. I have noticed that there is a tremendous effort there all the time to improve homes. There would obviously be a cost for that for the Treasury. If 5 per cent were charged on new homes, for example, I imagine that the charging of that lower rate for refurbishment would be revenue neutral.
	I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate, and I was waiting to see who would grasp the nettle. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, came closest, when he referred to the percentage of land in this country that is urban land, as he described it, the rest presumably being open land or green-belt land. If I had to recommend anything to your Lordships, it would be that they needed to make journeys—I have had the opportunity to do so—by helicopter from the centre of London to Colchester, and from the centre of London to Coventry. When we drive, we believe that there is ribbon development all the way, and we assume that most of the land is covered with buildings.
	After about five minutes of travelling from the centre of London by helicopter, I discovered to my astonishment that the country is green everywhere. One can hardly see the villages, although the towns occupy more land. My second point is really that what has not been discussed in real terms is what we will do if the supply of housing cannot be increased significantly—probably by between 100,000 and 200,000 homes a year. Over the past 50 years, the population has risen from 50 million to 60 million, and there are huge numbers of one-parent families.
	It is the demand for homes that is pushing prices higher and higher. The law of supply and demand determines what will happen to house prices. If we cannot increase the supply, there is certainly no likelihood of the demand being reduced. Coming from these Benches, this is not easy to say but I believe that a great deal more land, and not only brownfield land, should be made available for the building of homes. I quoted the south-east, but if people had the opportunity to fly over the whole of Britain, they would realise that, even if we took 2 million acres to create more homes, that would still leave the country as a green and pleasant land.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing what has been a wide-ranging and very interesting debate. It has been so stimulating that we have had two contributions in the gap, which, in my experience, has not happened for a while. I declare two interests. I am president of the National Housing Forum and also a vice-president of the National Housing Federation.
	Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I welcome the Barker report, whether or not we agree with everything in it, because it provides the opportunity to debate housing and it gives us reference points around which to focus our debate today. I also welcome the fact that the report connects housing and the economy. I have been a housing spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in both Houses and many of my housing speeches have made that point. I am delighted that the Government have woken up to it, although it is a shame that it took them so long—a point touched on earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. That is particularly the case when we see what has happened to house building in this country, with the lowest number of homes being built since 1924. Behind that are the even more important figures which show that the number of households in temporary accommodation more than doubled in the period from 1995 to 2003. We are building affordable houses at one-tenth of the rate that we did in the 1970s, a point made by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott.
	Barker emphasises some of the effects on the economy. One of the main effects is that labour mobility has decreased as people often cannot afford to move to jobs in the south because of the price of houses. Interestingly, some people are put off moving to areas such as the north-east, where I live and where houses have been cheaper, although they are going up in price, because, if they want to move back to the south again, the question arises of whether they will be able to afford to do so.
	The volatility of the housing market has caused macro-economic volatility. We hear that matter being discussed time and time again. As other noble Lords have said this afternoon, the current situation is incredibly favourable to some people such as home owners, land owners and house builders. Those groups and their families get richer but other people—key workers, for example—are kept off the housing ladder. The noble Earls, Lord Peel and Lord Selborne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, emphasised the problems for those in rural areas.
	My other reason for welcoming the report is that it looks in depth at the supply side in housing. For too long, housing policy has been a response to the latest demand crisis. Such responses often merely patch over the immediate problems and do not deal with the fundamental ones. I do not remember who it was, but one noble Lord touched on what the Government have been trying to do for key workers. Will the subsidies for the loans to key workers have a knock-on effect? Do we understand what that will do?
	The number of new homes needed in both sectors has been outlined by Barker and also by Rowntree. Over the years, we have seen least growth in the social or subsidised housing sector. If one looks at graphs of housing-building in recent times, the private sector remains fairly steady; it is in the social sector that the amount of such building has gone down.
	It is interesting that Shelter believes that Barker may have underestimated the number of homes that we need. As we have already heard this afternoon, the CPRE thinks that it is an overestimate, but I believe that the CPRE is in a minority here. My noble friend Lord Oakeshott referred to the Home Truths document produced by a number of people with an interest in this matter. That document is supported not only by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation but by the Town and Country Planning Association, Shelter, the National Housing Federation, the House Builders Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Civic Trust and the Royal Town Planning Institute. That covers a fairly wide range of people who agree that we have a problem with supply. Although people will argue about the extent of the problem, there is general agreement on it.
	Barker and all of us have made the case for more homes to be built. But the important point is that we all want to see well designed homes. Several noble Lords touched on that matter this afternoon. Those homes also need to be in appropriate locations and they need to be built with the right infrastructure. As other noble Lords have said, too often the only voices that we hear on matters relating to housing supply tend to be from those who are opposed to new developments. The arguments for new homes need to be heard across the board if we are to improve access to housing for all—a point expanded on very well by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I believe that Barker is a useful tool in doing that.
	However, I have some concerns about some of the solutions put forward by Barker. First, I find them to be far too centralist. It is not surprising that I should have that view, coming from these Benches. Secondly, I fear that she is far too ready to cast aside democratic accountability. That was mentioned by several noble Lords this afternoon. Thirdly, and very importantly, I do not believe that she places enough emphasis on sustainability and on the need for us always to be mindful of how we affect the bigger environmental picture. Again, that point was referred to by other noble Lords.
	Interestingly, Kate Barker recently spoke at a seminar organised by the British Urban Regeneration Association. She admitted that this was one area on which she was not very good and said that she had not appreciated how high feelings ran over housing and the rural environment. She said:
	"I went into this with a fair amount of naivety".
	She added that her chief regret about the report was that pressure of space meant that she did not have a greater opportunity to address the water supply issue. That has been mentioned by other noble Lords this afternoon, and the Minister may like to report on it.
	Another matter which I do not believe was touched on as much as it should have been—in a sense, it was dismissed—is the importance of empty homes. Noble Lords have also referred to that point in the debate. I do not believe—and I do not think that anyone believes—that bringing empty properties back into use will solve the housing shortage. However, it would make a very good contribution to our immediate problem and it would certainly help to improve local environments. There is nothing worse for those who live there than having empty homes in a street. It leads to crime and involves all kinds of other factors.
	Returning to my first criticism—that of centralism—Barker's recommendations are heavily based on a centralised business model. My noble friend Lord Oakeshott was able to explain that far better than I could ever do. But she rightly identifies some of the problems that have held up building. I have already touched on the issue of nimbyism, as have other noble Lords, but Barker also talks about the planning system. Some of us in this Chamber, including the Minister who is to reply, have spent much time over the past few weeks dealing with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. We on these Benches do not like the fact that, again, convenience has been put before the democratic process. I think there is much evidence that the top-down approach really would be government telling the regions what they are to do, and the regions telling the people. That sort of approach does not work. That is one of my biggest worries.
	We need to value the role of planners, to boost their numbers and confidence and give them modern tools to enable them to do a better job. In reading the background for this debate I came across a contribution which pointed out that most European countries are far more advanced in the use of geographical information systems to assist their planning process. I hope that the Government are mindful of that.
	One of the other criticisms I have is that Barker does not attempt to look at why our economic development is so unbalanced across the regions. My noble friend Lord Oakeshott went into that, so I shall not repeat the many things he said, except to say that in the north-east, where I live, we are for the first time keeping more graduates from our universities than we are exporting.
	I conclude with one or two questions to the Prime Minister.

A noble Lord: Not yet!

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am not in another place. I am afraid those days are gone. That obviously indicates the esteem with which I hold the Minister here today.
	The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has now passed through both Houses. Was the timing right? Kate Barker said at a meeting that she was really rather shocked when she discovered that she was asked to produce this report when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was going through Parliament. I wonder whether the Government have conducted an audit on Barker. How many proposals do they think are in the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? I hope that the Minister will comment on fiscal incentives. Where are we on VAT, which has been mentioned? What about measures to encourage investment for renting and measures to ensure that money for infrastructure is provided upfront, not after the homes are built? How can we recapture increased value from development in local communities? What about the forthcoming spending review?
	There are all kinds of other things the Chancellor wants to do—extend child care, tackle pensioner and child poverty and meet defence commitments—yet we hear that we are to receive money for housing. I hope that the Minister will feel that he has the backing of this House when he puts in his bid in the spending review for more money for affordable housing in our country.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I welcome this valuable opportunity to discuss the terms of Professor Barker's recent report and the problems associated with the supply of housing. I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on securing what was, as my noble friend Lord Brooke said, an extremely worthwhile debate and one which we might not have had if it had not been achieved in a ballot. Certainly, there does not seem to have been any enthusiasm to bring it forward. I do not put the blame for that on the Minister. I have never known him to be averse to discussing anything to do with his responsibilities. He is always very ready to do that. We have been fortunate today in holding this important debate, which has generated some of the best and most thoughtful speeches that I have heard in the House for some time.
	The whole question of housing supply and demand and its affordability is one which has bedevilled succeeding governments. What is clear is that even though this Government have swung into action with their Sustainable Communities Plan, currently, fewer affordable houses are being built annually than in the last years of the Conservative government. As other noble Lords have said, it is clear that there has been a sustained collapse in the development of completed houses in all sectors over the period 1967 to 2002. That is well-documented by the chart on page 125 of the report, where the massive blue section highlights the subsidence of the development of houses.
	Local authorities have been taken almost entirely out of the equation as far as concerns providers of housing and have been replaced more or less entirely by registered social landlords—that is, by and large, housing associations supported by the Housing Corporation. However, here and now under these circumstances, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, sadly, completions are depleted.
	My noble friend Lord Selborne said that there is a real challenge here for the private sector and I agree. He demonstrated from his own experience the value of shared ownership, for example. That is not always a panacea, but it is a way in which land can be made available and affordable housing provided for people who can—he put it in jargon that we understand although it may not be entirely clear to other people—"staircase" their way out; that is, gradually to buy a property which then becomes their own. I believe also that house builders would not be adverse to looking to ways to provide affordable housing within private schemes. That is the way that we must start to go.
	The Sustainable Communities Plan predicates a vast increase in the number of houses to be built over the next 10 to 15 years. It produces vehicles such as urban development corporations to deliver the policies and, by and large, has frightened half out of their wits people who live in the south-east, in particular, at the prospect of large areas being taken over and extended on an alarming scale.
	That is not much helped by the pictures of the swathe of south-east England between Peterborough and the Essex coast on which it is proposed to make those extra communities, or by the discussions that we have had over the past few weeks on the extension of Stansted Airport. It may be right that only a small proportion of land is involved, but try telling that to the people who live in those areas and wait for the reply.
	It has been informative to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the subject of the effect on the countryside of the proposals in both this report and the Sustainable Communities Plan. They spoke about the difficulty of providing housing in the rural communities and, in doing that, the importance of being able to sustain those communities for the people who traditionally have lived there and who want to continue not only to live there but to work there and to provide the backbone of rural society. It is extremely important that we find ways to ensure that small organic growth in communities can be undertaken and that that can be locally based and locally negotiated.
	As I said in a debate last week, along with others from Parliament I had the opportunity recently to visit Poundbury to listen and to see the rationale of developing in an organic and sensitive way the outskirts of a city, which was based on an idea from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I think that most of us came away seized with the importance of building communities gradually, developing the infrastructure of roads, schools, medical facilities, dentists, vets, shops and employment all at the same pace, not at the same place.
	I thought that everyone would like that concept. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, most certainly did not. That is one example—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Best, with his scheme outside the City of York cited another example—of how people are trying to imagine sensitive development built on a whole system of sustainable living for the future. There is no doubt that we simply cannot dump down a whole lot of little boxes and try to pretend that that will bring together communities; it will not. We must find ways to enable people to come together. As I have said in this House many times, the big problem is ensuring that developments are such that people move in organically and in small numbers so that they get to know each other before anyone starts trying to extend the development. There is nothing worse than lumping together, as we have seen in the past, people who do not know each other and have no commitment to each other or to the area.
	Against such a background, this is an opportunity to take a closer look at the report and its recommendations, given the almost daily headlines on the problems associated with housing, house price inflation and lack of affordable homes that Barker looks at. We welcome the report; it has set the tenor for a proper look at what is required. However, we have some concerns. Despite the call by my noble friend Lord Lucas for consensus, there are areas on which we do not all agree.
	We are worried about the analysis on which the figures are predicated. They make assumptions about a range of social and demographic facts. Over time, we will want to ensure that we can rationalise them. In addition, they ignore the 2001 census data. It has been measured that 900,000 more houses are required in the UK than the Government estimate. That means that the estimated mismatch between households and dwellings may be flawed. In straightforward terms, perhaps the unsuitable mix of housing and the problem of affordability—related not to supply, but to incomes and mortgage eligibility—are more significant than housing numbers.
	Barker assumes that inadequate supply is the main driver in house price inflation, but noble Lords have questioned that. Low interest rates may have an effect; or perhaps the relative unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles is bringing pressure on the housing market. Other factors are the disproportionate allure of home ownership in British culture and the level of borrowing guaranteed by housing equity. I agree with the noble Lord who said that it was becoming increasingly impossible to buy a house of a size capable of sustaining a family, or for our children to set a foot on the first rung of home ownership.
	Kate Barker's advocacy of large-scale building and relaxed greenfield planning constraints is likely to result in unsustainable development. There are three principal concerns. One of those is the effect on communities and the environment—use of greenfield sites, flood plains and historic villages. Lack of water must be acknowledged even in this country as a problem that must be dealt with.
	Developers cogently argue that more brownfield development could be achieved through better planning guidance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, quite a number of recommendations in the report deal with planning issues. I agree with her that it would be very useful to have an audit of what is proposed in that. We might have been able to deal with some of those issues during the passage of the delayed planning Bill, on which we have had endless discussions over recent months.
	Another issue that was not raised much during debate on the planning Bill, and certainly not in the Barker report, was the lack of planning officers, the difficulty in providing them and ensuring that there is training and time to ensure that they can deal with such matters.
	The recommendations in the report will not solve the crisis in affordable housing that is growing increasingly worse. Furthermore, its suggestions would place enormous pressure on green fields and existing historic communities. Again I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about the report's centralising tendencies. Had we had a chance to discuss the matter during the passage of the planning Bill, we would have deprecated enormously the report's centralising tendencies in bringing together the regional planning boards and regional housing boards then dictating down the amount of housing that must be developed in a region. I certainly do not think that we should embark upon such a process.
	There is no doubt that this is a thoughtful report. If there are criticisms of it, I hope that they are constructive. We do not have time to go into them all in detail, but I am sure that there is far more time to be spent on it in future. I very much hope that the Government will have the courage to do that, so that we can ensure that what will make a major contribution over the years, as with all the other work done on this serious matter, can be properly taken into account.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for initiating the debate. It is my third Wednesday debate on the trot. I make no complaint about that, because it has been the first debate each Wednesday.
	I shall do more or less what I did last week. When we debated the Sustainable Communities Plan, I came with a set-piece speech, although I had no intention of ignoring colleagues' remarks. A few minutes ago I was torn in deciding whether to stick with my original plan and make the winding-up speech. But I shall cover many of the points raised and intend to respond in writing to the others. In many ways, I saw the opportunity offered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as an extension of last week's debate. It is a further step on the road to delivering sustainable communities in this country.
	As I have just said to my noble friend Lord Davies, listening to the quality of the speeches today I feel thoroughly ashamed of some of the speeches that I made in the other place. I have just been reading a report of the Barker debate that took place in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago. It was child's play compared with the seriousness of the issues raised here today. I shall be sitting around the table with the top dogs early tomorrow, and I shall ensure that the points made in this House will be stuck straight in their faces. They need to know the details of our discussions on Barker and such issues because a wealth of experience has emerged. What is more, it has reverberated around the Chamber. I know that there have been criticisms, such as those made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. However, the other points that the noble Lord made were only supportive in the sense of moving on. That is important.
	The planning Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in December 2002. Its Committee stage had been completed by the time of Kate Barker's appointment in 2003. It was a matter of public record that there was a major planning Bill in the parliamentary process. It cannot have been a surprise to anyone.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I do not give way, because there will not be enough time. I needed to put that point on the record; it did not come out of the blue.
	We asked Kate Barker's review on housing supply to look at two key concerns centred on the housing market. The first was decreasing affordability, particularly for those on lower incomes. In 2002 only 37 per cent of new households in England could afford to buy a house, compared to 46 per cent in the late 1980s. The second was a lack of responsiveness in the house-building industry. Over the past 10 years, the number of new houses built was 12.5 per cent lower than in the previous decade.
	The current housing market overall is not working. It prevents people who would normally expect to move into owner-occupation from doing so. It creates pressure in other sectors, such as private renting and social housing, as pointed out during the debate. Differences in house prices between regions make it more difficult for people to move between jobs and, as pointed out, to move back again. It has the potential to create an ever-widening social and economic divide between those able to access market housing and those kept out.
	Where house prices are the highest key workers such as nurses and teachers find it difficult to find somewhere to live. I wish to point out that everyone with a job is a key worker—a noble Lord raised that issue. If you are the boiler man switching on the central heating in an office block in central London you must be in first; you are a key worker so far as concerns the people in that office block. But the necessary constraints of priorities mean that the scheme for key workers has been narrowed to teachers, nurses and one or two others.
	In her report, Kate Barker set out a challenging agenda for change. Her key recommendations were: increases in housing supply, both private and public; establishment of an affordability goal to underpin housing supply targets; increasing responsiveness in how housing supply is planned and delivered; and incentives to encourage the provision of housing supply. Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done. I am not giving the Government's reaction to the Barker plan this afternoon. The Government's reaction is not available. I can only give an initial reaction to her proposals.
	I will also take this opportunity to talk about the important work that we are doing, as part of our sustainable communities plan, to tackle the issues targeted by the Barker plan, building on what I said last Wednesday. We are working hard to increase housing supply in London and the wider south east. Completions in the London, south-east and east of England regions have increased continuously since 2001. The most recent figures show an increase in completions of 8 per cent against the comparable period in 2002. Starts are up by 10 per cent. In addition to work to achieve existing plans, which as I made clear last week are for 930,000 extra dwellings up to 2016, we are working with local partners to deliver 200,000 extra houses on top of that figure in the Thames Gateway and the other three growth areas of the south-east: Milton Keynes/south Midlands, the Peterborough/Stansted/Cambridge/London corridor, and Ashford in Kent. We are learning the lessons of the past and making sure that we do not create soulless housing estates, but sustainable communities—mixed communities, not commuter communities—genuine communities with jobs and a social infrastructure.
	I have said this repeatedly, and I said it again on Monday morning in Essex to representatives of district councils, not exactly welcoming to the overall big picture, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made clear. No infrastructure; no development. No infrastructure; no growth. It is just not on for the Government to push the one and not deliver on the other. We are making sure that new infrastructure—roads, health centres, and schools—goes in before the houses are built, so that the services are already in place when people move in. Good progress is being made. We have only made a start, and I agree that there has been some difficulty in recent years. Over £2.7 billion has been made available for major transport schemes in the growth areas. We have put in place a funding package to enable the NHS to increase local service capacity in the growth areas. We are currently working with local education authorities and the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that schools' needs are met.
	Our drive to increase housing supply is not confined to new developments. We are committed to accessing the potential of the 300,000 long-standing, private sector empty homes in England. Our approach emphasises voluntary measures through work with the Empty Homes Agency to develop local authority capacity, but following positive reactions to our consultation paper last summer, we are also considering how to introduce some degree of compulsion. We are exploring options for securing the release of vacant space over shops. We have established the Housing Above Shops Task Force, and we are looking closely at its recommendations for measures to overcome barriers to the release of more space above shops. Those barriers are serious, and I pay tribute to the positive response that the British Poverty Federation made when I first asked it to help on this matter, when housing was my daily responsibility. It has been positive about this, along with its other partners.
	Through the Housing Corporation, we delivered over 23,000 new affordable homes in 2003–04, focused in London and the south-east, where the need is. In March, we met our target of bringing to an end the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless households with children, except in emergencies. We did not solve the problem of homelessness: I fully accept that it goes on, and more is needed. We have accepted the case made by Kate Barker for increased investment in social housing, and we will begin to address this in the 2004 spending review, which will come to fruition in July. We are also looking at how we can maximise the outputs from existing funding. The Housing Corporation is leading initiatives to improve the housing associations' performance.
	We also want to reduce unit costs through better design and modern methods of construction. It is part of the problem, in a way. Some of the money has gone in, but social housing dropped. We were getting fewer square metres per pound. I do not want to pick out individual speeches, but I would say that the speech of the day goes to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. He raised the point about off-site manufacture and modern methods. The other week, I made a detour, while travelling around England, to get to Interbuild, which was at the National Exhibition Centre. I specifically went to the off-site manufacturing section, which was huge—compared to the exhibition that I had gone to the previous year, it was massive. People were telling me about new factories being put down, £10 million investments for building the ingredients and the components. It was a wonder to see.
	There is a site at the moment somewhere in Manchester that is the largest off-site manufacturing site for housing, with 1,100 dwellings under construction. There is a real push being given through the Challenge Fund to the Housing Corporation. It is a small blip in the overall production. If we can double or treble off-site manufacturing, it will still be small, but it would make a massive contribution. Most of the factories are in the Midlands and the north, for a start. The skills required are totally different, although as the noble Lord, Lord Best, will constantly point out, because I have heard him do it, when they get on to the construction sites and meet the British building industry they must work doubly hard at quality control to ensure that the assembly is done correctly. We are working on that.
	A range of equity loans, intermediate renting, and shared ownership on new build is available to key workers, and £630 million will be spent on the scheme over the next two years. The Sustainable Communities Plan set out our commitment to prioritising development on brownfield sites and to promoting higher density developments through the planning system. That commitment has not changed. I will repeat the figure that I gave last week. For 2002, the latest figure available, 64 per cent of new dwellings were on brownfield sites. That was up from previous years. It will be more difficult to maintain that target as we step up the total housing production. That is the reason that we are not changing the target, as we have been pushed to do.
	Our approach on housing density is now starting to take effect. In 2002, dwellings were built at an average of 27 dwellings per hectare, which overall is an increase on previous averages since 1996. The density directive now applies to the wider south-east as well, where the minimum is 30 dwellings per hectare. High quality design at higher densities will help us to preserve the countryside. Part of the renaissance of the cities is the other side of the card to preserving the flight from the cities to the countryside, so that there is less pressure on land. This point has been raised by several noble Lords, and it was also raised last week—I will repeat it. Green belt land occupies 14 per cent of the land. National parks, which are not green belt, occupy 8 per cent. Areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is not green belt, occupy 16 per cent. Green belt land is not pretty land. Green belt land is not national parks or AONB. Green belt land is there around urban settlements to stop urban sprawl. As such, it is pretty poor land in a lot of areas, but it is green belt. It is there for a reason. The idea that we would concrete over the prettiest land, if there is a release of green belt, is nonsense. We have pledged that where we do have to have an incursion into green belt, we will not only replace it, we will replace it with knobs on. There are over 20,000 more hectares of statutory green belt now than there were in 1997. We are growing green belt as we go along.
	I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, who spoke in the gap about the helicopter ride. He was absolutely right. When I went to ODPM and found the Thames Gateway on my desk, which I did not know much about, I said, "I need to find out about the Gateway". Someone paid, one of the partners, for me to fly up and down the Gateway, both north and south, to have a look at the Gateway. The beauty of it is that when you are 500 metres up in the air, you do not see local authority boundaries. It is more joined-up. Most of the land is green belt anyway. It is the same when you go out into the country. Urban land occupies 9 per cent of the land, leaving green field at 90 per cent of the land—

Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, it is better to fly even higher, because then you would not see any people, and you would not need to bother about the people.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept the point. Given those figures, 90 per cent of England is green field. If we meet our target as regards existing plans in the wider south-east of the 930,000 plus the extra 200,000, we will take about 1 per cent extra into the urban—that is, about 1 per cent off about 90 per cent of green field. That would take us to the beginning of Barker. No doubt about it—the existing plans under the regional planning guidance, plus the 200,000 in the communities plan, takes us to where Barker comes in. She predicates more on top of that. The take-in land is minimal compared to what is there.
	I saw in the Guardian on Saturday, and the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday, some nonsense about concreting over our green and pleasant land. They ought to be forced to read the speeches made in the House today to see what the reality is of people coming from different parts of the country, taking a considered approach to a serious problem—homes for our people.
	As was said, the research commissioned by Rowntree delineated by the noble Lord, Lord Best, will be extremely useful. My department will be very interested in taking on board the issue of how we can explain what we are trying to do, and—which is more to the point—what we are not trying to do. That is another reason for welcoming this debate.
	We have recently expanded the communities plan to publish the document The Northern Way which gave slightly different solutions in different places. We had those because the country is not uniform. We all know that if we can get development in the north it will take pressure off the wider south-east. That is also crucial for jobs.
	I would like to mention the Egan review and its publication Skills for Sustainable Communities. The Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir John Egan to carry out this review in April last year. The publication was launched on 19 April. There was no statement to either House in 2003 about the commissioning of the review. Somebody decided not to make one available at its launch. However, 50 copies of the publication are being walked over to the House as I speak. I take full responsibility for not making sure that they were here beforehand. I knew about the debate, I should have asked, I assumed it would be here and I knew it had been published last week. I am not blaming anybody. I take full responsibility.
	In the few minutes that remain I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his debate; to welcome the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, gave about the fact that we are not building and concreting over the land; and to reinforce the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, particularly his point about 80 per cent of the total cost figure equalling planning permission. If people can do that, they will get planning permission for building affordable housing. We will look at that. I will make sure that each idea that has come up today is fed into the department to be tested against the communities plan. We will see if we are doing those things that sound like good ideas.
	I am reluctant to talk about bringing about changes by making changes to the tax system. I will get into deep water. Everything that has been said is sensible. I know what is going on in internal discussions. At the moment, the tax system is against generating and refurbishing homes and against brownfield sites. The same principles apply for greenfield sites and it is self-evident that it is more expensive to build on brownfield than greenfield. Something has to be done and that matter is being looked at.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, raised the issue of exception sites. We have no intention to do anything to jeopardise existing schemes where they help the problems identified by Barker. I take his point about mixed developments in rural communities.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his contribution. He made an excellent case for the existence of people's Peers in this House. That does not apply to everybody. The debate has been excellent. I will make sure those points are put to the department.
	After the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, had asked me her 15th of 16th question I lost count. She must have asked me 30 questions. I will see if I can get the answers to her points as they are not unimportant.
	The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, raised the issue of building regulations. That is being looked at. However, building regulations only affect new buildings, and we have a stock of 26 million dwellings to deal with on the issue of insulation. Both CABE and the regional housing boards are looking at specialist housing design and smart houses. Quarrying extraction, like water supply, is also being looked at. It may not hit the headlines, it is not politically sexy, but work is going on regarding extraction of the quarrying materials that we need and the water supply required for growth.
	I am running out of time. I have covered a lot of the points, although not all of them. I would like to mention specialist housing. A sustainable community without housing for the elderly is not sustainable, because it means that people are driven away from their community and lose the doctor and everybody else. They may want to move from the house they are in now to a smaller one, but they do not necessarily have to lose their social infrastructure. A community is not sustainable if it is not a mixed community.
	I apologise again about the Egan report. I welcome the debate and I will make sure that the points made will be fed in and tested against what is happening in the communities plan. I will stick to my word. When I look them in the eyes across the table in the morning I will tell them how good this debate was compared to the one in another place.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree with that last sentiment. I have been extraordinarily lucky in the quality of people who have chosen to speak in this debate, and I have learned a great deal in the course of it. I am very grateful to all noble Lords.
	I am particularly encouraged by what the Minister said about the speech of my noble friend—my noble kinsman. There is an awful lot that needs to be done to turn villages into sustainable communities. There is a lot of building to be done and it needs to be done in the right way. The more support we have for that the better. He and I both remember the countryside when it was full of people: I would love to see it that way again. That need not be destructive, it is merely going back to the way it used to be.
	I would like to take the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, to task for wanting to export a lot of civil servants to the north. The north is not an extension of India, to which we can chuck all our low-grade jobs. If we are going to do that sort of thing, we must export the high-grade jobs too.
	I suggest to the Minister that he could solve the problem he has with getting the south of England to adopt regional government if we were to move Parliament to the north. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Alcohol Abuse

Lord Avebury: rose to call attention to the burdens of alcohol abuse on local authorities, police, ambulance services and accident and emergency departments; and to move for Papers.
	The long-awaited publication of the Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England and the interim analytical report that preceded it are to be welcomed, but their message is not. They reveal the enormous burdens on society created by the misuse of alcohol—costed at £20 billion per year—and it is getting worse. Yet drink is so much a part our culture, that every analysis of the problem has to begin with a ritual emphasis on the benefits of moderate consumption. And so the Prime Minister begins his forward to the document by observing that:
	"Millions of us enjoy drinking alcohol with few, if any, ill effects."
	Unfortunately, 6.5 million people drink to an extent that they risk causing serious harm to themselves and other people, and 1.8 million are very heavy drinkers, almost certainly damaging their health and becoming prone to accidents.
	Individuals should be able to make informed and responsible decisions about their own level of alcohol consumption—as the Prime Minister suggests—but it is for the Government to set the environment in which these choices are made, so that the total of all choices does not threaten our whole future, as it does now.
	The Motion calls attention to the burdens of alcohol abuse on the public services. Behind the headline figure of 30,000 deaths per year—10 times the number of people that were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack—lies a huge penumbra of disease and disability in the community. Local authorities have to deal not only with the immediate and most obvious manifestations of alcohol abuse such as vandalism and dirty streets, they have to pick up the pieces afterwards in terms of poor educational attainment, school exclusions—alcohol is directly involved in about 20 per cent of school exclusions, and indirectly in a further 20 per cent—domestic violence, the break-up of families, teenage pregnancies and child abuse. The NSPCC says that 70 per cent of the children taken into care have parents who are suspected of substance abuse, and 920,000 children live in a home where there is parental alcohol misuse.
	Between 30 and 60 per cent of all child protection cases involved alcohol, the wide spread indicating that more research is needed in this, as in all, aspects of social and family effects.
	Local authorities have to provide for the 50 per cent of rough sleepers who are alcohol dependent. In Westminster, the city council tells me that 75 per cent have a drink or drugs problem. The interim report mentions local authorities only twice, and makes no attempt to assess the impact of alcohol harm on them.
	Some local authorities organise treatment, support and counselling programmes for people who are dependant on alcohol and wish to stop—at a cost of £17 million according to the Cabinet Office—but very few appear to co-ordinate their strategy, not only for the front line services, but also for children, education, the homeless and for the employees of the council who may have alcohol problems themselves. Sickness and absenteeism cost the economy £3 billion to £4 billion a year. Local authorities pick up their share of that tab.
	Alcohol misuse accounts for 150,000 hospital admissions and one third of A&E attendances, at a cost to the health service of £1.7 billion a year. Ambulance personnel on the front line are often the victims of violent drunks but do not keep records of call-outs at which alcohol is a contributory factor, at an estimated cost of £0.5 billion a year. That is a serious gap in our knowledge. We need the information for the wider purpose of continuously measuring alcohol-related harm.
	Professor Colin Drummond of St George's Hospital Medical School and others estimate that, in England and Wales, there are 1 million alcohol-related attendances at A&E departments a year at weekends alone. They propose national A&E data collection on alcohol-related attendances, and it would be useful to have the department's view on that. It would require that A&E staff be trained to screen attenders and refer alcohol-related attenders to appropriate treatment. There are several ways of doing that. Professor Robin Touquet and his colleagues at St Mary's have developed the one-minute Paddington alcohol test, which enables them to identify patients at risk and refer them to a specially trained alcohol health worker. In 2001, only four A&E departments in the whole country had such a facility. It has been shown that, if alcohol misusers are identified at what Professor Touquet calls a "teachable moment", treatment is highly effective. Sixty per cent of patients who received brief interventions reduced their alcohol intake. The pay-off was that fewer of those patients returned to A&E for any reason.
	There are teachable moments at which drinkers can be persuaded to change their behaviour in other environments: attendance at STD clinics; facio-maxillary clinics; fracture clinics; gastroenterology outpatient departments; and GP surgeries. There is nothing in the strategy about the GP contract, although, on average, the GP sees one heavy drinker every day. Twice as many people are dependent on alcohol as are dependent on all other drugs put together. Consumption is rising, as it has done almost continuously for the past 50 years. If even a small percentage of those people could be referred to an alcohol health worker at a teachable moment in the GP's surgery, the returns would be huge. Routine screening of new patients and brief intervention delivered opportunistically in primary healthcare is effective in reducing alcohol misuse and saving healthcare resources. Would the Government consider including that in the quality and outcomes framework of the new GMS contract?
	In last week's debate on the strategy in another place, the honourable Member for Dudley North contrasted the £95 million spent on alcohol treatment services with the £1 billion spent on drugs services. He also mentioned the £95 million spent by the drinks industry on rebranding Smirnoff. That is bad enough, but my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland elicited the fact that, in the past seven years, the Department of Health had spent nothing on highlighting the dangers of alcohol misuse. It should fund posters and leaflets about the risks, which could be used in hospitals and GPs' surgeries, as well as in health education classes in schools.
	We have heard how weekend binge-drinkers are out of control. The problem is getting worse, as the president of ACPO said on the "Today" programme yesterday morning. Before that, Deputy Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said that he was concerned about the rise in alcohol-fuelled disorder, fights and disturbances in public places. Similar comments are made by police officers up and down the country, as we saw in the BBC's "Drunk and Dangerous" series. A senior civil servant in the Home Office says that it is more or less impossible for the police to enforce the law in city centres. During one eight-week period in 2002, the duty nurse at Charing Cross police station saw 1,193 detainees and recorded that 37 per cent had identified alcohol as an issue for them. Nearly two thirds of sentenced men prisoners and 39 per cent of sentenced women prisoners admit to hazardous drinking. The Prison Service was to introduce an alcohol strategy for prisoners this spring. Has it yet done so? What are the details?
	We shall have an opportunity to discuss the barmy idea that bingers will sober up, if they are given a few more hours in late-night vertical drink factories, when the Licensing Act guidance is approved by the House. Apart from the mayhem on the streets every Friday and Saturday night, alcohol is a factor in half the crimes that are committed and in an even higher proportion of violent crimes: 58 per cent of rapes; 60 to 70 per cent of homicides; 75 per cent of stabbings; 70 per cent of beatings; and 50 per cent of fights and domestic assaults. In 2000, 44 per cent of domestic violence victims said that their attacker was under the influence of alcohol, compared with 33 per cent in 1998. That is one of the evil effects that are increasing. Of those who die in fires, according to the chief of the London Fire Brigade, 23 per cent are over the blood alcohol limit for driving. In England and Wales, violent crimes reported to the police were up by 2 per cent last year; in London, the increase was 4 per cent.
	Drink driving and drink-related road accidents and deaths are on the increase, but the number of drivers tested has gone down. The Government have rejected the idea of reducing the blood alcohol limit to 50 mg or allowing the police to test people randomly near pubs and clubs, as the BMA has proposed.
	All the problems that we experience in England are found to a greater or lesser degree elsewhere in Europe. Yet, the only action at European level proposed in the strategy—and only if voluntary measures fail—is the compulsory labelling of bottles. There is no mention of the possibility that Europe might harmonise taxes on alcohol with a view to reducing consumption throughout the EU and equalising competition between member states. There is not a word about the WHO's European alcohol action plan and how the strategy connects with it.
	Labelling would certainly help drinkers to know whether they are drinking safely. Three out of five drinkers claimed to know what the recommended benchmarks were, but, of those, two fifths had no idea of what they were, and only a third got the answer right. The label should tell drinkers not only how many units they can safely drink in a day but what that means for the stuff in that particular bottle. It should also give a health warning on the dangers of exceeding the safe amount, as suggested by the BMA.
	Finally, I come to the most calamitous and irrational omission from the strategy: any policy for reducing the level of alcohol consumption, to which harm is directly related. The interim analytical report said:
	"Price and availability are important levers on overall consumption: there is clear evidence of links between price and availability and overall consumption, and hence harm".
	That is echoed in the report by the Academy of Medical Sciences, Calling Time, which recommends that action should be taken to reduce consumption to 1970 levels by increasing taxes. Research sponsored by the European Commission shows that there is a link between the amount of alcohol consumed and the incidence of harm in Europe as a whole. A WHO report, Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, found that,
	"the net effects of taxation and price increases . . . are to reduce alcohol use and related problems".
	The strategy, perversely, rules out the use of the price mechanism. Instead, it proposes co-operation with the industry in the prevention and minimisation of the consequences of alcohol misuse on a voluntary basis. It is bizarre to trust the people who introduced alcopops and encouraged a huge increase in drinking by 11 to 15 year-olds.
	The more the industry is involved in palliative schemes for detoxification, after-care and support, the more difficult it will be for any future government to disentangle themselves from such arrangements and introduce policies that bite on consumption. That cosy relationship will prevent the objective consideration of any measures that would damage the profits of the industry. It is like inviting arms merchants to stop wars or fast food chains to combat obesity.
	The interim report shows that alcohol was 49 per cent more affordable in 2000 than it was in 1979. That is the reason for the torrents of alcohol that are engulfing a whole generation. Disposable incomes have increased by over a third during that period, while the real price of all kinds of alcoholic drink—beer, wines and spirits—has gone down. One need not be Adam Smith to understand why more and more people drink far too much. The Government's rejection of the laws of economics, coupled with their unfortunate reliance on the drinks industry, mean that the strategy has little hope of making a real impact on England's most dangerous habit. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing this debate. Alcohol abuse has become an epidemic and the noble Lord is to be applauded for drawing our attention to this blight and the burden it lays on our local authorities, hospitals and accident and emergency services. In economic cost, to say nothing of the human cost, the price tag associated with alcoholism is enormous.
	I shall confine my comments today to a specific issue: foetal alcohol syndrome. It is probably true that many people know that drinking while pregnant can cause problems to the unborn baby, but the degree of knowledge today is probably at a similar level to that in the 1950s about tobacco and cancer. The simple issue is this: a pregnant woman who drinks runs the risk of alcohol crossing her placenta and entering the body of her foetus. At early stages in its development, the foetus will have only a rudimentary liver, which clearly will not be able to filter alcohol out of the body. That is the stage when the baby is most vulnerable, but even as the pregnancy develops and the organs become better formed, the exposure is still there.
	The problem is that alcohol in the body of the foetus can rob the brain of oxygen, destroy brain cells that can never be regenerated and retard the growth of other organs. The brain suffers from incomplete development, which will permanently affect the body of the baby from birth. Of course, many women drink when they are pregnant. Many drink when not knowing that they are pregnant. Many drink to celebrate that they are pregnant. And many drink because they know no better or because they think that the risk is minimal.
	I shall describe what FAS means to a growing child. The problem is that the affected child usually looks normal and, at first glance, acts normally. One can talk to a child with FAS and wonder what all the fuss is about, but they are mentally retarded. Sadly, the ill informed reaction is to admonish such children for being stupid. The incidence of bullying at school is high. Dumb kids get a bad time; dumber kids are humiliated. Such children exhibit difficulties translating hearing into doing, thinking into saying, reading into speaking and feelings into words. They have difficulties perceiving similarities and differences. They cannot generalise and make associations, or compare and contrast, and they have difficulties with patterns, sequences and judgments. They have problems with emotions. Many cannot tell the time. They get lost if left alone. And when they leave school, they cannot hold down even the simplest of jobs. Typically, such children appear normal until they reach early puberty, then they tend to be abandoned by their playmates. They adopt new and younger friends, only to be dropped again when they too reach puberty. Eventually, such children become friendless.
	The scale of the issue is massive. Each week, 28 babies are born with FAS. That is more than the combined number of babies born with muscular dystrophy, spina bifida, HIV infection and Down's Syndrome. It is one statistic that seems set to rise. I leave it to your Lordships to calculate the cost to society of FAS, but every one of those who is significantly afflicted becomes a major cost to our health service and to our special needs schools. The tragedy is that much of it could be avoided.
	Your Lordships will hear in this debate and read in many learned papers about the effects of the alcohol pandemic. Nowhere is binge drinking more prevalent than in the 16 to 25 year-old female sector of society, and nowhere is it more widespread than in our own country. "Ladette" girls on the lash, getting legless on a Friday night, are prime participants in casual sex and prime candidates for inevitable pregnancy. I know that it is tough enough to persuade those young women to go easy. They would probably retort that they know the risks and "What the hell? Friday night is Friday night". We have daughters and granddaughters and we know how hard it is to urge restraint. However, what those young women do not know is the real risk that they are running as the foetus in their body is being wrecked by their indulgence. It is here that government have a responsibility to be much more proactive in making such knowledge much more widely available.
	Sometimes, we in this country stick our heads in the sand about those types of medical issues. The medical profession is not always at the vanguard of recognising new ailments such as FAS, preferring to say perhaps that it is a figment of the imagination. Sadly, so too are government. In the recent Cabinet Office paper, Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, FAS is barely acknowledged. The paper states only,
	"that some groups, such as pregnant women and those engaging in potentially dangerous activities (such as operating heavy machinery), should drink less or nothing at all".
	That is all right then. Problem sorted.
	The United States takes a much more proactive approach to FAS. The medical profession and the caring services have a much greater awareness of the issue. The US Government have taken much more anticipatory action.
	Were I to stand here this evening with two cans of Budweiser beer—one can bought in New York and the other bought in London—there would be a noticeable difference. The American can would have printed on it the following:
	"GOVERNMENT WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects".
	The British can would have no such message. What does that tell us? It means either that we do not know or that we do not care. Either way, it is not very promising. We do not have a Surgeon General in this country, but we do have a Minister from the Department of Health, who will wind up our debate. Will he tell your Lordships' House why American women are entitled to be alerted to that issue whereas our own women are left in almost total ignorance?
	Indeed, I read in the Daily Mail, which I admit is not my normal source of information, that government guidance is that mothers-to-be can safely drink up to four units a week. Even assuming that a young person knows what a unit is, which is highly questionable, that advice is wrong and dangerous. The message should be loud and clear: "If you are thinking of getting pregnant, do not drink. If you are pregnant, do not drink". It is a clear message, so why are the Government not giving it?
	We live in a culture in which the drinks companies are allowed to target their marketing to young and impressionable women. It is cool to knock back Tequila slammers, Bacardi Breezers and Smirnoff Ice. I talk to people in the industry. They respond with warm platitudes, but they do little. And how about this gem? I can hardly believe that it is true, but I read that Tesco is recruiting pregnant women as wine tasters. Apparently, pregnant women have an enhanced sense of taste and smell and can detect subtle differences. How macabre is that?
	I conclude with a plea to the alcohol industry. You are playing a very dangerous game and you will do well to re-read the history of the battle that was waged against the tobacco industry in both the United States and here. In the 1950s, the tobacco companies knew full well of the connection between tobacco and lung cancer, yet they kept the data under wraps. Today, the alcohol companies are in a similar position. They know the correlation between drinking in pregnant women and subsequent birth defects, yet they are keeping quiet. The tobacco companies were sued for many billions of pounds and they nearly went out of business. The alcohol companies could be on a parallel track. My advice to them is to address this problem and to recognise its dangers. They should work closely with government and the voluntary organisations so that this looming tragedy can be avoided.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. My own speech will not remotely have the specialist quality of his. I thank him for having raised a subject of which I had some inkling, although I had no conception of it in terms of the degree of detail which he used. Those remarks are genuine. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, also in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing and initiating this debate and on the characteristically well informed and constructive way in which he spoke. As I remarked at the end of the previous debate, both debates today have been secured by Balliol men. As one who has the same college loyalty, I quote again, as I did in the earlier debate, the observation of Phillip Guedalla, a man similarly blessed or afflicted:
	"Life is just one damned Balliol man after another".
	I dare say that all of us in your Lordships' House who have prepared for this debate have been as depressed by the sombre statistics that we have studied as we have been impressed by the comparative unanimity of the statistics, which saves one from the unproductive effort of comparing and rationalising the various hymn sheets. Ministers, too, such as Hazel Blears and Melanie Johnson, have quoted statistics that we can recognise.
	As to the debate's substance as against statistics, the debate was stigmatised for me yesterday within the Palace, but outside the Chamber, as being implicitly the self-indulgence of puritans. Hogarth was quoted to me in the same context, the quoter perhaps forgetting that Hogarth's famous cartoons were to illustrate the virtues of beer and the evils of gin. Of course, it was in any case in Hogarth's lifetime that Mirabeau was the first man in the history of western thought to utter the word "civilisation". Indeed, in the past century proportionate British consumption of alcohol has fallen, although in the past half century, due to the growing enthusiasm for wine, it reversed its decline and rose again.
	The particularly worrying statistics relate to the behaviour of under 16 year-olds. The proportion drinking has remained fairly constant, but the consumption of those who drink has doubled in a decade, and a third of those under 15 admit to having experienced being drunk by the time they were 13. Only one in 10 French or Italian children says the same. We share with Denmark and Ireland having the heaviest teenager drinkers in Europe, and there is an interesting illustration of our behaviour on the Continent currently available on the London Underground. Our preferred continental destination among stag night cities has moved from Amsterdam to Prague and Tallinn. The illustrations in the lastminute.com advertisements beside the escalators for trips to Prague and Tallinn show that in neither case is the architectural charm of the cities the big draw. The good citizens of Budapest—Anglophiles since the 19th century—had better be warned that they are next in line.
	Against that background, I hope that the Government will pay attention to Turning Point's recommendation that young people as well as voluntary sector and community representatives should be involved in planning policy, environmental design, public transport and initiatives on safe places in which to congregate. That would take planning and licensing laws beyond being simply the responsibility of the police and the local authorities. Westminster has always had good community and police liaison, and a good project was developed in the West End during the previous Parliament under the chairmanship of my former Westminster parliamentary colleague, Sir John Wheeler, which could serve as a paradigm.
	From my similar previous inner-city constituency responsibility, when I had been the MP for the City of London for a month, a surgical team at Bart's invited me to shadow it for 24 hours to see how its day was spent. I remember being warned late in the evening that I would be roused from my bed in the hospital if emergency surgery had to be carried out on casualties that Friday night from within or without Islington pubs. Of course, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays in inner cities provide A&E departments with their heaviest nights.
	In a BBC News online broadcast on 18 October 2003, Dr Paul Ransom, the A&E consultant for Brighton and Sussex NHS Trust, said:
	"On Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights we could get by with a quarter of the staff on the evening shifts if it wasn't for alcohol".
	Seventy per cent of relevant respondents to an opinion poll thought that the number of patients they were treating, whose illness or injuries were the result of alcohol misuse, had increased during the past five years.
	The total cost of alcohol-related crime, assaults and disorder in England and Wales is estimated to be up to £7.3 billion. To that is added up to £4.7 billion as a consequence of the human and emotional impact suffered by victims of crime, including, of course, the cost of victim support services. If those combined figures are accurate, they constitute 60 per cent of the £20 billion that Turning Point believes alcohol costs the country each year. That figure presumably includes many of the one in six of NHS staff who the Commission for Health Improvement found had been subject to violence at work. The British crime survey of 2001–02 stated that 47 per cent of all those assailed that year believed that their assaults had been alcohol-influenced.
	As to behaviour that may not necessarily lead to violence, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, 6.4 million people have levels of drink consumption over the recommended guidelines. To be fair—or, on the other hand, unfair—to them, almost 50 per cent of the nation do not even know what the guidelines are. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a specific question. Turning Point's Waiting for Change report states that the Department of Health spends 18 times more on funding research into drug treatment, compared with research into alcohol harm reduction. It would be interesting to hear the department's rationale for quite so large a discrepancy.
	However, to revert to the Government's strategy, I am interested in why the DCMS does not join with the Home Office and the Department of Health in the shared responsibility across government to make the strategy happen. I acknowledge that the DCMS did not submit the Licensing Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny—that was not the case with its Communications Bill and the draft Gambling Bill. The consequences showed up in your Lordships' House, which received that Bill first. Of the 88 defeats that the Government received in your Lordships' House in the previous Session, one in eight was on the Licensing Bill—the second largest number of any of the 18 measures that suffered defeat at one time or another.
	As the Bill went through after a four-year gestation period, it became apparent that many of the premises—I do not mean licensed premises—were faulty. For example, the Government argued that spreading closing times would reduce disorder. By contrast, police in Westminster testified that most crime within the borough occurred at 3 a.m. The Government praised Manchester as a model for its code of practice. By contrast, the City of Manchester said that excessive drinking in the city centre was, inter alia, putting off students from pursuing Manchester as a university destination. The Commons Minister in charge of the Bill then visited Manchester and found that there was a 125 per cent saturation of licensed premises in the city centre, leading to cut-throat, competitive happy hours to attract custom. It says a good deal for putative Mancunian students that the prospect of discounted alcohol might put them off going.
	Most of all, however, the Government argued throughout the Bill that alcohol-induced anti-social behaviour outside licensed premises fell outside the scope of the Bill and would be resolved by other means. It says volumes for that attitude that yesterday ACPO's spokesman, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should have spoken as he did on the radio about the relative incapacity of the police to control such behaviour, and that such attention that they can give is at the price of other policing.
	I remark in passing that the strategy is silent on how the police and local authorities will take action against retailers and licensed premises that do not operate in a responsible manner. I also personally regret that the Bill wiped clean the slate of all the undertakings as to their conduct, which local communities had painstakingly secured from landlords in magistrates' courts down the decades.
	In conclusion, I fear that I have not found the source of an alleged comment by the Home Office in mid-March this year, though it may have been a quotation of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the new drinking laws would create a crime explosion in cities and town centres; whereas the following week, which I infer was the week in which the strategy was published, the Secretary of State for the DCMS, the right honourable Tessa Jowell, said that the new laws would prevent crime. That is at odds with the Government's exclusion of consideration of anti-social behaviour during the passage of the Licensing Bill, and it seems to me that the link between the licensing laws and the strategy stands in need of strengthening rather than the opposite.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority and as a councillor on Oxfordshire County Council. I am also a member of two crime and disorder partnerships. I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Avebury for introducing this subject for debate.
	Dealing with the anti-social behaviour that results from drunkenness is one of the greatest burdens on police resources. Urinating in the streets, throwing missiles—often bottles and glasses—the use of obscene language and causing minor public disorder or damage may seem relatively insignificant, but if left unchallenged these acts lead to a fear of crime, an acceleration in public disorder and a decline in the mixed city economy that we all aim for. The high-visibility police presence required to deter such behaviour is very resource intensive.
	The arrest of drunken offenders incurs significant personal risk to police officers. Furthermore, such offenders are vulnerable while in custody. Drunkenness is a common feature of death in custody, which in turn leads to huge inquiries that eat into police time. Drunken prisoners take longer to process, require many more visits from prison doctors—who are always in short supply—need more cell checks and remain in custody longer while they sober up. There are also obvious impacts on cell hygiene, which gives rise to extra costs. Officers are diverted from other law-enforcement duties to deal with alcohol abuse, which obviously has other adverse effects on crime.
	The problem we confront is serious and all the available evidence suggests that it is getting worse. Noble Lords have heard enough about that evidence from other speakers in the debate. The new licensing law, for which we still await the guidance notes, has been described as a "leap in the dark" in seeking to tackle the situation. I submit that this has been pushed by the drinks and entertainment industries. They are obsessed with profits, engage in irresponsible sales promotions and ignore the social consequences of alcohol abuse. In my view, the Government are too concerned about being considered "anti business" to take the firm action needed here. They rely heavily on voluntary codes of good practice and a voluntary fund aimed at national level projects to promote social responsibility.
	While no doubt it is difficult to judge the effects of the new Licensing Act before it comes into force, research suggests that there will be an increase rather than a decrease in anti-social behaviour. Studies undertaken in recent years in Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Germany and New Zealand where permitted hours have been deregulated all show that this has led to increased disorder by extending binge drinking late into the night which, in turn, increases and extends the need for all sorts of other services, including the police. That puts an extra strain on their resources. Moreover, as a councillor, I can bear witness to the costs incurred by local councils in clearing up the mess resulting from a night of binge drinking.
	The British Crime Survey shows that many non-domestic alcohol-related assaults take place in the context of the night-time economy, half of them around clubs and pubs, and 70 per cent at weekends. Most other incidents occur in surrounding public places and on public transport. Half of the incidents involve injury, and in one-fifth of them the aggressor is armed with a glass or a bottle. Under 40 per cent of incidents come to the notice of the police because they are dealt with by that dubious army of quasi- legal individuals called "bouncers", who operate somewhere on the far fringes of the law. Some 50 to 80 per cent of violent crime is committed by an intoxicated person and, as we have heard, much domestic violence is alcohol-related.
	I am very glad to see that a health Minister is to reply to the debate because he can take a slightly more dispassionate view of the situation than perhaps was the case while the Licensing Bill was being considered. The licensing law regime should be very tough with the immediate and, if necessary, permanent closure of premises and banning of staff if violence or open drug taking has occurred. I am not interested in closing premises for 24 hours; I really do mean that such premises should be permanently barred.
	There should be an immediate start for the treatment and education programmes referred to by my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. These should be funded by a levy on the drinks and entertainment industries and should cover both the local and the national level, otherwise initiatives like arrest referral schemes and drug and alcohol action teams will not work. At present they are pitifully funded. I have just read the minutes of a meeting of an Oxfordshire drug and alcohol action team. The word "alcohol" was not mentioned in those minutes because the team is struggling just to deal with the drug problem. That is why, as I have said, I am particularly glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is to reply to the debate.
	We must ask whether the advertising and promotion of drinks should be outlawed, as is the case for tobacco. I know that drinking is a social pleasure, but it is no excuse for violence, drunken driving or wife beating. Lastly, the offences of serving people who are under age or are already under the influence should not be treated as trivial misdemeanours, but taken seriously and be the cause of the loss of the licence. I say that because there is no doubt that drinking is being taken up at an ever younger age. Those charged with enforcing the law, local authority trading standards departments, are pitifully underfunded, and the number of checks being carried out is very low.
	I hope that I have been constructive, but the problem we face is extremely serious and dangerous.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing this debate and concur with his wish for an informed strategic rather than piecemeal approach to dealing with alcohol abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned the long history of the problem. I shall not embarrass noble Lords by bursting into song, but mawkish old ballads such as "Father, dear father", with their melodramatic stories of social disaster because of drink, remain uncomfortably pertinent to this debate, and the need to reduce alcohol consumption.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for mentioning Manchester. It has the largest number of undergraduates of any city in this country and, while I acknowledge his points about the fears of potential applicants, I am glad to report that applications to Manchester's universities remain very strong indeed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the number of A&E admissions. The latest figures in Manchester show that two-thirds of all people presenting themselves at the North Manchester Hospital A&E department on Thursday, Friday or Saturday nights are there because of an alcohol-related injury. Some 80 per cent of those attending each night at the Royal Infirmary are there for alcohol-related reasons. Moreover, I am told by our ambulance service that over half of their call-outs in the evenings and at weekends are to incidents where alcohol is a factor. I have also been told of increased violence being meted out to crews and paramedics.
	We have just held a summit meeting in Manchester of the police, politicians, academics and the people who work with those whose lives have been damaged by alcohol to assess the level of burdens placed on our local services in the face of the problems indicated. A survey has shown that one in four men in the north-west admit to binge drinking at least once a week. That our local burdens arising from alcohol abuse are not worse is thanks in part to the Greater Manchester police City Centre Safe scheme, which has been rightly praised in the Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. We are also grateful for the co-ordinated approach to policing and protecting people who seek a good night out. That has been initiated by our police and it has been helpful to hear the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on policing.
	The Manchester experience shows that A&E departments can be relieved of burdens related to alcohol when efforts are made by local authorities and emergency services to co-ordinate transport home, to remove sources of conflict and vulnerability, to promote education in healthy drinking and to encourage licensees to behave more responsibly. As a result of those co-ordinated measures in Manchester, we have seen a fall of 12 per cent in reported violent incidents related to alcohol.
	However, the reason why such measures had to be taken in the first place was the rapid growth in the city centre of the number of pubs and clubs which have greatly increased Manchester's alcohol-related problems. I cannot see how the Government can praise City Centre Safe on the one hand, and a moment later argue that the growth and development of licensed premises will have no effect on public order, not to mention the destructive effect on health, which has rightly and alarmingly been described by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.
	In the last year for which we have regional figures, mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol accounted for nearly 9,000 hospital admissions in the north-west. As your Lordships will know that affects more than just the person being treated. Rather alarmingly, case audits in Greater Manchester reveal that 30 per cent of all child protection cases on the at-risk register are alcohol related. In other words, as noble Lords have eloquently demonstrated, this is a multi-faceted problem that has a complex network of tragic effects.
	Evidence from Greater Manchester shows that much can be achieved when agencies think strategically and are enabled to work together. The Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy recognises that. But behind those words we need more resources and much clearer warnings from the Government about the all too often disastrous consequences of alcohol. Nationally the voluntary or charity sector provides about 70 per cent of services available to help those suffering from alcohol abuse or misuse.
	Through the years those excellent initiatives have grown piecemeal and they are often unevenly located. In Manchester city we have, for example, the Guinness Trust, Turning Point, which has already been mentioned in a national context, community alcohol teams, the NHS alcohol arrest referral scheme, Alcohol and Drug Services, of which I am patron, which has its abstinence based Twelve Step day care service with after care support, the Booth Centre at the cathedral and so on. There are also educational programmes helping both secondary school pupils and those of any age misusing drugs at teachable moments, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described.
	All that is impressive, but the trouble is that nearby in a neighbouring district, under a different local authority, there is far less. There are no local in-patient detox beds, no services for alcohol screening and assessment, no day-care provision and so on. The truth is that people in that local authority area do not receive the same level of help. That is a savage paradox. It means that such people end up as a burden on hospitals and other services, not least because their mental or physical conditions have deteriorated because help was not available in the first place.
	The message is clear. We need to spend money to save money. That is how we treat other drug addictions. Over £1 billion of public money is invested in other drug services each year. Yet the agency, Alcohol Concern, estimates that only £95 million is spent on alcohol services, primarily from the budgets of primary care trusts and social services. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that only £7 million is spent directly by central government.
	None of the burdens addressed tonight will be eased without the support of the licensing industry. To counter binge drinking, Greater Manchester Police have initiated the Best Bar None scheme where licensees are inspected to ensure that they have proper standards of customer care and our alcohol strategy commissioning group is building links between those who treat people with drink problems and the alcohol industry. I hear the reservations made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about that kind of seemingly cosy arrangement, but we have seen it have a positive effect.
	Our public services across the country bear a great burden of care for people who misuse alcohol and those whose lives they touch. By working together and with agencies in the voluntary sector, they are able to achieve much, but they need a coherent strategy. The Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy recognises the desirability of that. However, strategic thinking requires strategic budgeting. So the verdict is so far so good, but let us go further—much further—and try to remove the evils of over-drinking that have blighted the lives of far too many for far too long.

Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has done us all, and particularly the Government, a very good turn by initiating this debate and for outlining the problem so clearly. The recent publication of the Government, to which many noble Lords have referred, the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, shows the Government's concern.
	As well as outlining the extent of the problem, the document makes a series of proposals for action—the right reverend Prelate described some of them—which, if carried out, may well ameliorate the situation, but nowhere in the strategy did I find mention of a serious attempt to curb the ever-increasing supply, availability and consumption of alcohol. Consumption in the UK has risen from an equivalent of 5.5 litres of pure alcohol her head per annum in 1960 to 11 litres in 2002, a doubling of the figures. Over the same period, while the price of alcoholic drinks, including tax, has of course risen, it has fallen by some 60 per cent in relation to average earnings. At no time in the past century, or perhaps ever, has alcohol been so cheap in this country relative to average salaries or pay.
	To attempt to control such a popular addictive habit, when its source material is so easily available, is a Canute-like exercise. It is the equivalent of treating patients with typhoid or cholera while paying no attention to the contaminated water supply. As well as a falling relative cost, consumption is encouraged by subtle advertising, suggesting to young people that drinking certain new products is cool. A Smirnoff Ice Black, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mitchell, sounds very wicked and rather exciting; to drink it surely is a sign of maturity and success. The advertising suggests that one will be a success particularly in sex, whereas experience points in the other direction.
	Studies by Saffer and Dave, and others, cited by the Calling Time report from the Academy of Medical Sciences, mentioned by the noble Lord, says that,
	"alcohol advertising affects attitudes and behaviour, especially in the young . . . Among young people, more exposure to alcohol advertising: increases positive beliefs about alcohol and drinking; reduces perception of risk; shapes perception and encourages pro-drinking attitudes; shapes perceptions about acceptable levels of alcohol intake (upwards); [and] increases consumption".
	There is an almost perfect correlation between expenditure on alcohol advertising and weekly alcohol consumption by 11 to 15 year-olds. Contrary to the Strategy Unit document, there is evidence that banning advertising can be effective. There is also evidence that hard-hitting counter-advertising works for both alcohol and smoking; but where promotion of alcoholic drinks is widespread the impact of the counter-advertising is swamped. I am aware that there are already restrictions on advertising but, by keeping your eyes open, it is not difficult to see that these are not very effective and are widely breached.
	It is interesting to draw a parallel with our other two major public health problems—tobacco smoking and obesity—where industry is promoting the consumption of products harmful to health. In both cases, as with alcohol, industry is able to mobilise far greater resources promoting its products than the Government are in discouraging their consumption. Noble Lords will all remember the powerful rearguard action of the tobacco industry long after the link with lung cancer and heart disease was firmly established. As has already been pointed out, the ban on advertising tobacco products was achieved only after a long struggle and after it was shown that voluntary restrictions did not work. Control of smoking in workplaces has still no legal backing, although the issue is being kept alive in your Lordships' House by the Bills of my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
	In regard to the food industry's promotion of "obesogenic"—I like that word—foods to children, the issue is still at the stage of allowing the industry time to put in place a self-regulatory code of practice, with the implication that if this is not effective regulation will be imposed. This is the policy proposed by the strategy paper, where it states:
	"If industry actions are not beginning to make an impact in reducing harms"—
	by early in the next Parliament—
	"Government will assess the case for additional steps, including possibly legislation".
	I remain sceptical that the voluntary route will be any more effective than it was with the tobacco industry but I appreciate that, in the words of Tessa Jowell regarding food advertising, the Government,
	"doesn't want to pick a fight with the industry".
	This is, of course, a theme that has underpinned much of government policy since 1997—let alone the previous government where it was only to be expected. But many of us—not only on these Benches and in the health professions—feel that the Government would have huge popular support if they took a much tougher line with industry when an important public health issue is at stake, as it is here.
	To return to the relative reduction in the cost of alcohol over the past 40 years, would not the most obvious step be to start rectifying this by increasing excise duty? Some may argue that with duty on alcohol so low in many countries in the European Union, legal personal importation—with or without additional smuggling—would undermine this. They have an important point.
	However, the extremely generous traveller's allowance for carrying alcohol across borders could be reviewed. At present, taking the standard recommended UK limits of 21 units weekly for a male and 14 for a female, permitted importation on a single journey—perhaps with a white van—would amount to two years' supply for a man and three for a woman. Altering this allowance might have to be agreed via the EU, which would delay matters endlessly, but there is a clause, I think in the Treaty of Maastricht, which allows unilateral action by a member state where an important public health issue is involved.
	There is little doubt that increases in cost are the single most effective way of reducing consumption. My noble friend Lord Warner may correct me, but I could not find a single reference in the Strategy Unit document to the effect of price or excise duty on consumption. Why is this not being considered when it was explicitly used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the campaign to reduce smoking?
	Finally, there is one other issue which is relevant to today's discussion—it has been discussed in much more detail by my noble friend Lord Mitchell—and that is the effect on the foetus of maternal drinking. The foetal alcohol syndrome is now a recognised clinical entity but accurate statistics of its incidence are not available, partly because it is difficult to diagnose. The Department of Health states that there were 95 "finished consultant episodes"—which are not equivalent to cases—in 2000, 90 in 2001 and 128 in 2002, but it can give no further information such as that given to us by my noble friend Lord Mitchell.
	It is not certain whether the incidence in the UK is higher or lower than in other countries. The World Health Organisation gives the rate as 0.33 to 9 per 1,000 births in various countries. The figures given by my noble friend Lord Mitchell are twice the highest of those figures. I wonder whether my noble friend can account for this discrepancy.
	Finally, I agree very much with my noble friend that because alcohol is most damaging to the foetus in the early stages of pregnancy—often before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant—this should be made a very explicit and powerful point in any anti-drinking health education.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject today. It is important because alcohol misuse is a very serious health problem with significant social costs because there is an increasing level of alcohol-related crime and public disorder and it is an enormous and increasing burden on the public purse.
	In wording the Motion we are debating today, the noble Lord drew attention to the burdens faced by local authorities, emergency services and A&E departments. I suggest that it does not much matter where the burden actually falls: either way it is too great and the taxpayer is footing the bill. Many noble Lords have spoken about the extent of the problem; I should like to talk about possible solutions and focus on those in the Government's strategy paper.
	My two opening comments are general. First, it is not a strategy paper; it is entirely tactical. Perhaps one of the reasons the Government make such a meal of things is that they have not learnt the difference between strategy and tactics. The paper is a collection of individual ideas. I think the right reverend Prelate described it as "piecemeal". I do not think he meant that critically, but he is right. Some of the ideas are good, some not so good, but the paper contains no overall strategy except to try to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. It does not really need a strategy paper to conclude that that is a laudable aim.
	Secondly, I wonder why it took two-and-a-half or perhaps even three years to produce. I know several people working in this field who could have written the paper in a week or two. Frankly, it is fairly basic stuff. That does not make it bad, but it is fairly basic.
	My next comments are indeed criticisms. The paper refers to two categories of problem drinkers—binge drinkers and chronic drinkers. At one stage the paper also refers to the "chronic alcohol syndrome".
	At this point I should declare an interest as chairman, for almost 10 years now, of the Drug and Alcohol Foundation, which is one of the leading providers of day care for drug addicts and alcoholics in the City of Westminster; and for 15 years I have been chairman of the Addiction Recovery Foundation, which is now the main provider of information to professionals working in this field.
	Last week we hosted at Church House the inaugural UK/European Symposium on Addictive Disorders. Some of the leading providers of care for addicts and alcoholics in the world came to our conference and, although I asked every single one that I reasonably could, no one knew what a chronic drinker is and no one had heard of "chronic alcohol syndrome". It is called "alcoholism"; it is an illness. It is chronic, but it is also treatable.
	Your Lordships may think that I am being pedantic but accurate definition of the issues is essential if any strategy is to work. Alcoholism is an identifiable, treatable illness. Alcohol misuse or abuse, whichever you want to call it, on the other hand, is not an illness and is therefore not responsive to treatment. All alcoholics misuse alcohol but not all alcohol misusers are alcoholics: to waste expensive and scarce healthcare resources on someone who cannot benefit is clearly absurd. The strategy's failure accurately to identify and differentiate between these two groups makes one of the four "key aims" of the strategy a great deal more difficult to deliver, therefore. That "key aim" is described as the,
	"better identification and treatment of alcohol misuse".
	It is entirely correct that early identification and referral is vital for any successful treatment programme. The strategy's Chapter 5, headed "Identification and treatment", is very difficult to quarrel with. The real problem is that much of the treatment within the health service is of fairly indifferent quality; and that the NHS and local authority purchasers of care have appeared reluctant over the years to buy from the voluntary sector, where there is often a better quality of care at a lower price. My understanding is that the National Treatment Agency is to be given the responsibility for alcohol treatment. Although it has not yet happened, it is a very significant step forward. I congratulate the Government on that decision, which those of us in the drug and alcohol treatment world have been pressing for for many years—indeed, since long before the NTA was born or thought of.
	However, I hope that the Minister is aware of the National Treatment Agency's concern that this added responsibility will not be accompanied by an appropriate increase in resources. To increase the NTA's workload without increasing its budget—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested—would threaten the progress it has made in drug treatment, while severely handicapping its ability to improve the treatment of alcoholism.
	Of course I know that no government paper is ever going to be perfect, but sometimes I am left to wonder. The summary to Chapter 5 in the strategy, states:
	"Government will improve the identification and referral of those with alcohol problems by: running pilot programmes to establish whether earlier identification and treatment of those with alcohol problems can improve health, lead to longer-term savings, and be embedded into mainstream health care provision".
	How can earlier identification and referral not improve things? I really hope that the Government are not going to waste time trying to prove what has already been proven on countless occasions. It is remarks like that that really do cause one to despair.
	The second substantive point I wish to make concerns education and communication, which is covered in Chapter 4 of the strategy. These comments apply as much to drugs as they do to alcohol. I started my remarks about treatment with a criticism, and I shall do the same now, if only to get the negatives out of the way.
	For some years the Government have insisted on their campaign to encourage "sensible drinking". That has to rate—I have to tell your Lordships—as one of the most irritating and pointless campaigns ever embarked upon. Alcoholics cannot drink sensibly, and binge drinkers, somewhat obviously, have already made the decision not to. The campaign is backed by "guidelines", which suggest the appropriate maximum units that men and women can safely consume daily or weekly. The problem is that no one knows, understands, or even cares what these units are. They are entirely artificial and were invented 15 years ago by the Portman Group, which is an industry group.
	At my conference last week, I asked every professional counsellor I could find if he or she knew how many units they could safely drink, and whether he or she found the existence of this advice useful in his or her work. Without exception I was told that the whole exercise is a pointless waste of time and effort. So I ask the Minister to convey to his department the message that the alcohol treatment field would like to see an end to "sensible drinking" and advice about "units".
	There is an assumption throughout that giving information—educating people, by which I mean children and young people—about the dangers, will deter them from risky behaviour, and thus reduce harm. At the bottom of page 27 the strategy says,
	"provide alcohol education in schools that can change attitudes and behaviour".
	In case your Lordships have not noticed, I have just removed my treatment hat, and placed on my head my hat as chairman of Mentor UK, which is part of the International Mentor Foundation, the world's leading organisation in the field of substance misuse prevention. Mentor's extensive experience throughout the world means that I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no evidence whatever that providing drug and/or alcohol education has the slightest positive effect on behaviour. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence to indicate that it may even lead to an increase in drug and alcohol use.
	Prevention and education are two completely different things. We do not know how to prevent young people from misusing drugs and alcohol, but there is increasing evidence that there may be some initiatives we can take to help them to alter their behaviour. As yet the Government have failed to understand that, and, without a commitment from the Government anything we do is going to be too little. My organisation is working with three government departments, and we are starting to get some interesting results.
	Your Lordships may have seen the coverage in the Times on Monday, and today some interesting letters about a research project we are running in conjunction with the Department of Health and with the support of Defra into drug and alcohol use among young people in rural areas. If the Government are really serious about trying to prevent the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought to our attention, this is the way to go about it. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will make a commitment to developing evidence-based prevention programmes, and have a careful look at the results of the existing education programmes, because I think he will find that they are fairly disappointing.
	Assuming that treatment can and will be improved—a big assumption—and that we will cease to waste money on pointless education programmes, and focus on evidence-based prevention, we can make real progress. But it seems to me that in many ways the most difficult area is this subject is that of "binge drinkers". They are a uniquely British phenomenon. There is some evidence that there is some binge drinking in Australia and Denmark, and it is starting in France, but fundamentally it is a British problem. It is a relatively new problem and no one is clear therefore what the solution might be. Those among the binge drinkers who are alcoholic will, in theory, of course get picked up within the improved treatment process that the Government proposes. It is the others—the binge misusers—that present the real problem.
	I suspect that part of the solution to the problem of binge drinking and public drunkenness—if I can call it that—lies, as has been suggested, with the alcohol industry itself. The advent of stronger lagers and those revolting, sweet and extremely strong fruit drinks makes the business of getting very drunk extremely easy. The relatively recent concentration of licensed premises in town and city centres only serves to encourage that. But there are solutions. The alcohol industry must accept its share of the responsibility to resolve these issues. That means paying more attention to being good citizens than to increasing profits, because if it does not in the long term I believe the industry's profits will suffer. It needs to realise that the implied threat behind the strategy paper is that if it does not use its considerable financial and structural muscle as an industry to help resolve the issue of public drunkenness and disorder, the Government will quite rightly take steps to do so; and I suspect that the industry will not like those steps.
	That leaves me to conclude that the answer to the implied question of the noble lord, Lord Avebury, is that in the foreseeable future this is going to be a considerable drain on the public purse through a number of different agencies. Despite my criticisms I think this strategy paper is a first small step in the right direction. But I do hope that the process of implementation will be a little quicker than the drafting of the original paper.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for instigating this debate on a subject which needs exposing; and data need collecting on alcohol abuse so that positive improvements can be made.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I serve on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Abuse, which is served by Alcohol Concern. This group helps to keep Members of Parliament and Peers up-to-date with changing trends and developments concerning alcohol abuse. The members of the group no doubt have many different reasons for attending. I, for one, have seen several people lose their lives far too early due to alcohol abuse or the combination of drugs and alcohol abuse, or drugs, alcohol and anti-depressants, which can become a lethal cocktail of abuse to the systems of vulnerable people.
	The subjects the noble Lord has put down for discussion are admirable, but the hidden problems of alcohol abuse in the home and the desperate plight behind closed doors of the children of alcoholics must not be forgotten, including that of babies who may suffer violent attacks from parents who cannot control their anger due to alcohol. Many children have to try and keep homes running while their parents or mother is incapable due to alcohol.
	The unpredictability of an alcoholic mother is a huge problem for school children who are unable to bring a friend from school home in case their mother is drunk and they feel embarrassed and let down. So often in these circumstances children have to cover up and pretend all is well, when they feel the desperate need of help and support.
	Not long ago there were some television programmes showing the incredibly difficult job the police have in controlling drunk people after heavy drinking in some city centre areas. When heavy drinkers turn violent, they become a menace to society. With the extension of drinking hours and the problem of alcoholic behaviour in Britain, the message coming out of Parliament is a confused one for everyone.
	Some time ago I visited prisoners being kept in Wandsworth police cells, as the prisons were full. One prisoner was being processed by a GP. The prisoner so obviously had a serious alcoholic problem, I said to the GP, "What is going to happen to him?". The answer was, "If only I had a drying-out alcoholic unit to send him to, that is what I would do". We have a huge public health problem on our hands due to alcohol abuse. The long-awaited Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England has at last been published, but unlike the drug strategy—where funds were available—there is already concern that, without resources, progress in harm reduction for alcohol will wither on the vine.
	It would be totally wrong if the Government took much-needed money from the health service to fund the alcohol strategy. You only have to look at the desperate need for more intensive paediatric cots for premature babies who have to be shunted round the country, or the vital need for the control of the dreaded MRSA and other hospital infections. The public and press are beginning to know about many of these needs.
	Surely the vast drinks industry should help foot the bill of providing rehabilitation facilities for these people who realise alcohol is ruining their lives and that they need help to come off and stay off. I hope the Minister will agree that alcohol abuse and treatment of people with an alcoholic problem needs the combination of primary care trusts and local authorities working together along with voluntary groups. This is where there should be a framework for evaluation, joined-up government and local needs assessment. Alcohol problems cover health, education, social services, probation, police, the Home Office, housing and employment. The people who have had a problem and who attend Alcoholics Anonymous groups seems to find this a useful way of supporting each other when overcoming their addiction.
	The concerted effort of many organisations, both government and voluntary, seems to be paying off over smoking, but there is still a long way to go. It seems there should be a concerted effort to tell the public of the dangers of over-indulgence in alcohol. In the long term, the aim should be to change people's behaviour and habits before it is too late. As with smoking, the pictures of damaged lungs can be effective. I think damaged livers from excess drinking of alcohol as well as information might change a few habits.
	So many young people who drink way beyond the safe limit just do not think it will happen to them. Last Sunday, knowing of this debate, I called in at the accident and emergency department of my local hospital in North Yorkshire. I was pleased to meet some of the staff who told me three of their nurses were attending training on alcohol abuse and were on a course. What they found most useful was learning how to handle people who had become abusive and difficult. I was told when there is trouble in the A&E department, the police were marvellous and arrived on the scene in minutes.
	This is an example of a hospital in a small town which has problems, but these can be controlled as numbers are not too great. The story is quite different in a large, inner-city Yorkshire hospital, where sometimes gangs have had fights and have been known to continue the fight in the A&E department after having delivered a stabbed member of the team.
	It is important that ambulance service personnel all have adequate training in dealing with people who become abusive through alcohol. Vomit and urine are easy to cope with; it is the violence which needs careful handling to avoid injury to staff.
	I visited an interesting project in Sheffield, run by the charity Turning Point. The project is run from the centre called SHED. Young students from a school with lots of problems are trained to be peer counsellors and try to change the attitude of children with alcohol problems within the school. I feel there are some young people doing remarkably good things to try and help other young people understand the dangers of alcohol abuse.
	I also visited a school in Huddersfield where school members had a remarkable acting group which showed younger children the dangers of drinking though role-play. It is good that this sort of realistic education is being promoted.
	Last week I was talking to a lady who has a flat where people, who are subsidised to live in the building, have alcohol problems. She told me what a nuisance they were and asked what she should do. She said she too had plenty of problems, but she was working her guts out in the local hospital. When she came home she could not get any sleep due to the loud music and disturbance from the alcohol users. Surely the local authority should control their social problem people.
	The problems of binge drinkers on the streets are frightening normal people—old people and disabled people are frightened to go out. Time has run out, so I will stop. However, there is a huge amount to do, and I hope the Government will help those people in the community who are trying so hard in this regard.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us this opportunity to discuss this growing public health problem of alcohol abuse and its disruptive effects in community life. As a non-executive director of a primary care trust in Wirral, this debate is particularly relevant.
	Wirral has the highest percentage of people who drink alcohol every day in Merseyside, and there is only one acute hospital on the Wirral. All our NHS trusts operate on a budget that has a combined debt—in this year just closed—of almost £10 million, and 40 per cent of that debt belongs to the hospital.
	Primary care trusts are now being asked to participate in the treatment of drug addicts including those who have been sentenced to drug testing and treatment orders. Should we not include alcohol abusers in these programmes as well? That, of course, would require trained staff.
	As has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit published a report on alcohol harm reduction, estimating that the annual cost of alcohol-related crime and public disorder has increased to £7.3 billion, and that is about 10 per cent of the current NHS budget. Therefore, it is certainly time for us to look at how we can reduce and address the problems of alcohol abuse.
	The impact of alcohol abuse is found to be most disruptive in the accident and emergency departments of hospitals—and in our local hospital it is no different—at peak times, usually between midnight and five o'clock in the morning on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. At those times nearly seven in 10 cases are due to alcohol. On an annual basis, in England some 23,000 hospital admissions are alcohol-related.
	People who are drunk and have injured themselves through fights and falls cause fear and alarm in A&E departments by being noisy and threatening. These patients are also responsible for verbal abuse and violent behaviour towards hospital staff. Most of all, they are examples of unnecessary injury among young men and women. Hospital employees are also put under stress when having to cope with antisocial behaviour due to alcohol. Some 35 per cent of all patients who attend A&E departments are there due to alcohol, and they cost the NHS £500 million every year, according to Alcohol Concern, and that will increase.
	For a problem that contributes to high expenditure in the NHS, alcohol abuse has not been the subject of a public campaign. No dedicated budget exists for public education and awareness campaigns about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. A MORI poll last year found that only 7 per cent of men and 22 per cent of women knew what the Government's recommended level of alcohol consumption was for them.
	According to the British Crime Survey, half the victims of violent crime, which causes disruption in community life, report that the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol at the time. Violent crime included domestic violence—an issue that is very important, particularly in view of the domestic violence legislation going through Parliament—and sexual assault. More than half of alcohol-related violence occurs in and around pubs, discos and night clubs, mostly at the weekend. Despite increasing public concern, little has been done until the publication of the report, and it does not go far enough, as noble Lords have stated.
	Alcohol misuse causes harm to health, public order, productivity with the loss of 17 million working days, and families, with about a million children affected by their parents' alcohol problem, according to the report. What is required is a campaign to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol abuse. The publication is a start and, in spite of its deficiencies, is to be welcomed. However, what we look for and need are sustained programmes to improve the situation at local level.
	The advertising of alcohol on television and in other media should be regulated along the lines of tobacco. I am particularly concerned about alcohol abuse affecting young people from all social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, including those groups not traditionally associated with alcohol misuse. Children in those groups born and bred here have taken to the regular use of alcohol. Even overseas students—I have information from students from China—have taken up alcohol misuse. Some have been arrested for drink driving, according to the police. At least one car-load of Chinese students has been killed on the roads with, when tested, the driver having high levels of alcohol in his blood.
	I support the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Rea, about foetal alcohol syndrome, although the diagnosis of affected babies is not easy to make. However, we desperately need to increase the awareness of the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy and among young people through all media.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on being successful in the ballot. I thank him for his excellent and most comprehensive introduction to the debate, and thank other noble Lords who have contributed to it. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on the organisation of the inaugural UK-European symposium on addictive disorders. I know, not only from my experience but from what others have told me, that it was extraordinarily successful, with more than 400 people participating in the three-day event the week before last. I also thank Deidre Boyd, the principal organiser, for all the work that she and her colleagues did.
	I am urged to move on quickly as we are running out of time, so I shall not go over some of the ground that I had intended except to say that, when the issue came up at Question Time a couple of months ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was at the Dispatch Box. I said that I felt that, since the Government came to power, we had seen a worsening of the climate of alcohol abuse in the country generally. I also said that I was somewhat disappointed with the nature of the report produced, and expressed very strongly a belief—one that I still hold—that the voluntary approach with the drinks industry would not produce the results needed to reverse the difficulties that we are in. Having listened to my fellow Peers this evening, I do not think that anyone spoke with any great confidence about the voluntary approach producing those results.
	I will jump some of the points that I wished to make in statistical terms, and underline two or three points made by other speakers. I shall put them in the form of questions to my noble friend. Given that I am saving him time, I hope that he will endeavour to answer some of them.
	Can we expect to see funding allocated to the strategy, whether there be a tactical approach or a strategic document, and at least to the important recommendations made? Will we see a similar allocation of public funds from the Government to the money that they have allocated to the drugs strategy? I again commend the Government for their work and money allocated on drugs. We now need them urgently to address alcohol, too. When will an announcement be made?
	Can we expect similar expenditure to that in the anti-drugs strategy on advertising and education? There may be question marks about the effectiveness otherwise, but it is at least important that the Government be asked to address the issue, and we could see whether it would be successful in practice.
	I am concerned, too, about some advertising that we currently see on television, which is extraordinarily laddish and loutish in many respects. Noble Lords with long memories will recall that we had a whole bout of that in the 1970s and 1980s, with the drunken bear strolling around on our television screens. That was shortly followed by the soccer tragedy at the Heysel football stadium in Belgium. In the light of that and the complaints made, ITV then withdrew those adverts. I rather sense that we are going through a bout that is not dissimilar. If there is the kind of episode that we witnessed previously, I fear that people will then wish that they had never run such adverts at all. I would like to hear how the Government feel about what is run before us in some of those TV adverts.
	I shall turn to the precise nature of the debate. When can we expect better security for staff employed in A&E units? We get constant complaints, understandably so, from those attacked on ever-increasing occasions. Why cannot we ask the licensees within a hospital's catchment area to make a contribution towards the cost of supporting and paying for the personnel needed to assist and support staff when they are faced with such assaults? Would the Minister be prepared to take that back to his department and consider it?
	When will the drinks industry be required to display on drinks labels, in an understandable form, the strength of the drinks within the bottles? I am not getting into the units issue, but people need to be given clear guidance on what they are drinking and what the consequences are likely to be for them. That is an area where we are sadly negligent by comparison with what happens in some other countries.
	As your Lordships will have gathered, I am highly sceptical about the willingness of the drinks industry to accept some social responsibility for its actions. I know that many tenant managers are under extreme pressure to hit targets to deliver results in their pubs. I hear that their area managers do not much care how those results are delivered.
	Hence the abundance of "happy hours" on a wide scale everywhere with cheap drinks. In many places, there is under-age drinking in pubs and clubs. If the Minister so wishes, I can take him to places as near as SW4 where this happens regularly and where no action is taken by the police authorities. There may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, explained, good reasons why the police are unable to do that, but on a wide scale substantial amounts of under-age drinking are taking place.
	I believe that the Government need to review their approach on pricing policy on alcohol. As noble Lords have demonstrated, the country is much more affluent than it was 20 or 30 years ago, yet in relative terms the cost of alcohol has fallen. It therefore follows that there is more money around to be spent on it and that needs to be addressed by the Government. They must at some point be bold. We need to see some target increases in the cost of alcohol, particularly the drinks which are customised and designed for hooking the younger, under-age drinkers. That is the responsibility of the Treasury, not the Minister, but I trust that he will take it back to the Treasury.
	In conclusion, I urge the Minister to produce draft legislation on the major issues in the strategy document and establish some form of pre-legislative scrutiny. Parliamentarians can then begin work on it, together with those in the industry who want to see changes of the nature noble Lords have been crying for today. That would force an entirely different response from the industry to the continual delay and pussyfooting which we will encounter with the so-called voluntary approach.
	Headlines and paper threats such as those we saw in today's newspapers coming from the Home Secretary will not produce the changes. I believe that unless we start looking at the possibility of introducing legislation and then force the industry to produce a more positive response, matters will only get worse. If that is to be the case, delay will be troublesome for the whole country. It is urgent that we get moving quickly on this and do not have to wait as we have for the production of the strategy document.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I want to talk about Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday morning. First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this important debate. His excellent opening remarks set the scene, supplemented by so many excellent speeches. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, was particularly important in focusing on a problem insufficiently highlighted in the public domain.
	The Minister is used to us all calling for more resources, but I would like him to consider two suggestions which are resource-neutral. The first is the one-minute Paddington alcohol test, which intervenes at a point where hazardous drinkers often encounter healthcare and where they can be moved to non-hazardous behaviours. The second is the establishment of a British Standards Kite Mark for glasses and bottles used in pubs and the move from glass to plastic bottles for drinks. I do not believe those moves would cost money and they would save resources.
	Alcohol is a real problem. The pleasant charming girl becomes a weeping wreck in the corner, prone to self-harm when she has had too much to drink. The quiet personable young man becomes aggressive and ends up charged with assault after a fight and has facial injuries which leave him scarred for life.
	On Friday and Saturday nights, 80 per cent of A&E attendances are alcohol-related and Professor Shepherd, a colleague of mine in Cardiff, found that they relate to licensing hours. Over 60 per cent of facial injuries are alcohol related. Young men are the most likely victims of assault.
	In the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit research conducted through St George's Hospital, the pattern of injuries was remarkably consistent across the UK, particularly face, head, arm or hand injuries. The weapons used were usually fists, knives, boots or bottles. Only 10 per cent were caused by coshes, glasses or guns.
	Eighty-five per cent of assault victims have facial injuries. The face is the target and the approximate ratio is four boys to one girl. It used to be a ratio of six to one, but girls seem to be getting into the fights, too. People are brought into casualty by ambulance and about half of them are alcohol-related attendances. Of those brought by the police, almost all are alcohol related.
	But we must not forget that some are brought in dead. They are brought in after road traffic accidents, after falling under trains or underground trains, or having been the victims of other accidents. The worst effects are associated with binge drinking, which is on the increase. Alcopops are a real problem because they give children the message that it is okay for kids to drink something with alcohol in it. They taste disgustingly sweet, but their underlying message is so damaging.
	My daughter is lucky enough to work in A&E at St Mary's Hospital Paddington. She works with Professor Touquet, who she finds quite inspirational. She has learnt from him that one minute makes a difference. Since 1986, he has been working on the problem of alcohol abuse and the load it puts on acute services. He has discovered the "teachable moment"—the time when the person with an alcohol problem presents in casualty, when he is vulnerable because he is injured or has fallen over and feels ill. That is the point when he will move from pre-contemplation—"I don't have a problem"—to contemplation—"Perhaps I do have a problem"—and even into action—"I have got to do something about this problem". My daughter describes being able to move people in one minute from pre-contemplation to contemplation.
	These people are much the worse for wear when they present, but the other interesting finding is that if they are given an appointment with an alcohol worker within 24 hours, 62 per cent of them will attend. But if there is a delay of 48 hours, 62 per cent of them do not attend—they default. It is about catching that "teachable moment" and intervening there and then.
	The strategy action point says that this type of measure should be piloted. No, I would say to the Minister, "Just roll it out. Make it one of the targets. Use it for star status or whatever other status you want". One minute where these people encounter health services could make the difference of a lifetime to them. It has been shown that 25 per cent are moved from hazardous drinking to non-hazardous drinking. They need to encounter the question at the time they present with one of the top 10 conditions.
	Unfortunately, nurses and doctors themselves have a sad history of alcohol abuse. Eighty-seven of the 210 doctors who the GMC had under medical supervision in 2003 have alcohol implicated in their need for professional rehabilitation to ensure that they practise to the standards required of doctors. But it seems sound that intervention and then letting people help themselves, such as Alcoholics Anonymous has done, are the key to stopping abuse.
	The next issue I want to address is the injuries which follow. The compensation cost to taxpayers from compensation paid out for injuries on licensed premises alone is about £3 million per annum. This is the tip of the iceberg because it does not include compensation from those known to the criminal justice system, nor time off work, nor the health service costs, nor the cost in road-traffic accidents related to alcohol.
	So Professor Shepherd's work, researching toughened glasses, is incredibly important. He has shown that toughened glasses have an impact resistance six times greater than non-toughened ones. They disintegrate into sugar-lump-type fragments, so even when you are hit in the face with one of them, the injury is not as bad as would be caused by shards of shattered glass. Even the thin glasses—the type in which Guinness is served—are more impact-resistant than ordinary tankards if toughened glass is used to make them. Bar workers are at particular risk of glass injury, especially to their hands.
	There are a few actions that I seriously believe need to be taken. Some imported toughened glass is not toughened very well and it can prove to be more dangerous. Therefore, the solution is to develop a British standard to protect drinkers and bar staff and then to get the industry to follow the lead such as that taken by Stella Artois and other organisations, which are now using plastic rather than glass bottles. These are plastic bottles with three layers. The inside and outside are plastic and there is a film of nylon in between, which stops oxygen getting through and making the drink deteriorate. Therefore, the liquid tastes just as good as it would out of a can, if one likes that kind of drink.
	There is another problem. Young adults migrate from outlying feeder towns into our main cities at peak times for the purpose of drinking. But the problem is that the police do not migrate with them, and the police know the youngsters who are at risk. Therefore, if A&E and the police were linked into crime reduction partnerships, the police could access accurate anonymised data on the amount of alcohol that is behind crime. If they came down with us from the Valleys into Cardiff or into other cities with these youngsters, they might spot the troublemakers. Therefore, the solution is to use crime reduction partnerships, and the next step may be that the clubs which encourage the binge drinkers can be named and shamed and the problem that is out on the streets reduced. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the two points that I mentioned: the BSI standard for glass and the one-minute PAT test.

Lord Addington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avebury deserves a vote of thanks from the entire House for making us take note of the problems of alcohol misuse. I do not know whether my noble friend would agree that there are no problems with proper alcohol use.
	When I started to consider this subject, I tried to think about just how deeply alcohol use goes into our society. I came to the conclusion that it is totally impregnated within our society. We have used it for thousands of years. The first story that I can think of that has a reference to alcohol is the original story of Noah, who apparently was a Sumerian who kept himself alive when washed out to sea in the Arabian Gulf by feeding himself and his family on the beer that he was intending to sell up-river.
	The whole of modern society has used alcohol. If we go back far enough, we come to the time when beer was considered to be safer than water and alcohol was used to fight infections. It is deeply embedded within our society. The only western society that tried to ban alcohol—the United States—ended up causing major social problems by criminalising large sections of its society, which capitalised on organised crime.
	Having said that, there is still, and always has been, the issue of what happens if people drink too much at the wrong time and what happens if the problem is not addressed. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, the only thing that is different now is the intensity of the drinking. That is something that we must square up to. We have known about this matter for years. The problem of people drinking too much has always existed. The young have always been the ones to binge drink. We did not call it that when I was a student. When I was a young rugby player with medical students in the team, I saw binge drinking but we called it something else. However, it existed.
	What tended to happen in the past, but which I do not think is happening now, was that there was more frequently a steadying hand on the shoulder. It has now become fashionable not to have a drink in order to relax and enjoy oneself but, more commonly, to get "out of it" and leave responsibility behind.
	I read an article in the Times on Friday which talked about the design and development of drinks by the drinks industry. The writer of the article came to the conclusion that I myself have come to: following the fashion for taking ecstasy, clubbing, being completely removed from reality and getting totally "out of it", the very young have moved on to alcohol. We have seen an intensification of that trend. The use of alcohol represses one's inhibitions. It allows people to relax and talk more freely.
	To use another historical example, the Spartans in ancient Greece were remarkable because they did not have to pour alcohol into their soldiers to persuade them to kill up close. Alcohol allows people to lose control and to do things that they would not otherwise do. Another instance that I want to give is not too far removed geographically from my previous example. In Bosnia, both sides of the "irregulars" committed atrocities while filling themselves with home-made vodka to help them to get on with the job. Alcohol is something that we can misuse and have frequently misused.
	The Government's current policy effectively states, "Oh, there is a problem". It then calls for voluntary co-operation from the drinks industry. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who spoke just ahead of me, pointed out the kind of advertising and laddish behaviour that we are now seeing. Let us hope that that is a fashion and not an ongoing trend. Ultimately, it will come back and bite very hard because it goes away from the idea of social relaxation to the idea that it is all right to behave in a totally unacceptable manner.
	I turn to the document that has been referred to. I believe that the best summary of it was given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I shall summarise his summary by saying that it is a start. It is a slightly incoherent, panicky and nervous start, but it is a start. The Government must convince the drinks industry not only that it has a responsibility but that taking action will be directly in its own interests.
	Drinks which help a person to remove himself totally from his surroundings—for example, alcopops, which, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, are absolutely disgusting—are very attractive to the young. Indeed, my 18 month-old daughter thinks that they are great when we go past them in a supermarket. They look lovely and come in pretty colours, and the hand goes out towards them. I have heard other small children say to their parents, "Can we have one of these?" because they do not realise that they are something that adults have. I have also read articles reporting that such drinks have had their heyday and that other designer drinks are coming in. Even if that group of drinks will no longer be such a factor, we must persuade the drinks industry to address the fact that it has a responsibility and also a long-term interest.
	Ultimately, the Government have sticks as well as carrots available to them. The thing about a stick is that you must be prepared to pick it up and at least wave it around before anyone believes that you are going to do anything with it. Current government policy does not state that the Government will ultimately use sticks if they have to do so. Personally, I believe that we should be using sticks. We should address the fact that the drinks industry, with its constant development of new types of beer, spirits and so on and the marketing of spirits, has a great responsibility for the way that such drinks are used.
	If the Government are not prepared to cajole the industry, they must be prepared to do something else. Surely drinks that are targeted towards the young or whose marketing catches the young should be taxed more heavily. I say that purely off my own bat; I have no party authority to say it. But my personal opinion is that that would be the logical conclusion to draw. We must start to address the problem head on.
	It may be that the intensity of such drinking at present is a fashion and that it will go out of fashion. It will take time to disappear—all fashions do—but it can also come back. For a long time, the Government as a whole—I include the whole Whitehall and Westminster community—have been very tentative about their policy towards alcohol. They have moved too slowly and often without attacking the problem head on because alcohol is such an important part of our society and something in which we all partake. We must step out of our nice little warm environment in which we say, "Why can't everyone be like me and not drink too much in public?" and, instead, say, "There is a problem here. We must address it and ensure that we have some kind of coherent strategy".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to shatterproof glasses, which I believe is a point which could be followed up by the Government. I remember that the All Party Beer Group—I put my hand up again—gave out shatterproof glasses three or four years ago saying that that was the way forward. I would suggest that Government guidance stating that they had to be used would not be inappropriate.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating the debate and for his brilliant speech. I rather like the advice in the New Testament to take a little wine for your stomach's sake, but my wife reminds me that it does say, "a little" wine.
	That advice is being ignored by many thousands of people today who indulge in binge drinking. They seem to be completely oblivious to the great dangers and also the huge burden that alcohol puts on our emergency services. Drinks, even cocktails, are no longer alcoholic enough for the majority of the general public. That has led to them mixing their drinks to achieve a higher alcoholic content. For instance, a turbo shandy, which is now commonly drunk, comprises double vodka, a bottle of Smirnoff Ice and half a bottle of beer. That is being regularly consumed in universities.
	Spirits are now very much stronger, with the creation of new concoctions, such as Absinthe, which is 70 per cent alcohol; Sambuca, 40 per cent; and Aftershock, 40 per cent. It is worth noting that one 500 millilitre bottle of Absinthe, which is roughly a pint, is equivalent to 28 standard drinks. Binge drinking seems to have swept the United Kingdom. British bars and clubs have aggravated the situation by promoting "buying in bulk". For example, several wine bars offer the drinks promotion, "Buy two glasses and get the rest of the bottle free".
	The environment in which people now drink has changed dramatically. Modern premises are not like the old public houses that one used to go to with friends for a quiet drink. The rapid consumption of drinks tends to be encouraged within these new establishments with promotions such as shots of spirits served in open test tubes, which cannot stand upright on a table—neither can those who drink them—so the encouragement is to drink them straight down in one gulp. That type of shot is served by members of the bar staff who regularly circulate and approach the customers who are still seated, rather than waiting for them to approach the bar.
	As those drinking games become increasingly popular, so they become more and more extreme. That is exemplified by a website called www.BarMeister.com, an online guide to drinking, which lists 499 different drinking games. One of those is called "Centurion: 100 shots of beer in 100 minutes". Each person starts with a full shot glass and the timer is set at one minute. When the timer runs out, everyone takes their shot and the timer is reset. That is repeated 100 times. That equates to eight standard drinks in a little over one hour. Most people tend to be sick when they reach 60 shots but the game is continued. The next one is called "Nine Before Nine". The individual has to drink nine pints of beer before nine o'clock in the morning. In order to do that they start at 6 a.m. and drink a pint every 20 minutes.
	Many drinking gimmicks have been devised by the younger population in order to make a night of binge drinking more successful. For instance, drinking fines are commonly used for lateness among friends. One university hockey club website states that if a member of the club is arriving late at a venue in the evening, a fine will be imposed. If you are one to 20 minutes late, a beverage has to be purchased and drunk continuously without pausing for breath until it is finished. If you are 10 to 30 minutes late the same procedure is followed yet with a double amount of the beverage to be consumed, and if you are more than half an hour late, three pints of beer must be consumed within 15 minutes.
	Drinking games and drinking gimmicks become more extreme the more people get used to them resulting in very dangerous practices becoming just the norm. I refer, for instance, to "The Dentist's Chair". A volunteer is strapped into a dentist's chair and spirit is poured down his throat by someone called "the Dentist" until he can take no more and closes his mouth. The time is then recorded and displayed on a board.
	Those university rituals play a large part in the life of students. At many universities, freshers' week is a week of binge drinking. That behaviour gets into the mindset of the fresher that binge drinking is an acceptable part of university life. Powerful peer pressure forces them into binge drinking. Ten per cent of students drink to dangerous levels. The average safe dose for an 11-stone man is 21 units in a week, but he can often consume all of that in a single evening.
	Binge drinking is not only common among those who are legally entitled to drink but is being adopted by minors. As many noble Lords have already said, more than one in three 15 year-olds report being drunk at the age of 13 or earlier, which is very different from the situation in France and Italy. A report published in August by doctors working in an accident and emergency department found that children as young as six have needed hospital treatment after going on drinking binges.
	Drinking large numbers of units over a relatively short period is likely to be far worse for the general health than consuming the same level of alcohol over a week. After all, alcohol is a poison. Its action is to depress the function of the brain, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, emphasised. The apparent stimulation is due to suppression of inhibition and repeated instances of binge drinking have been linked to strokes, kidney damage, memory loss and an increased risk of breast cancer in women.
	Alcohol-related problems are responsible for 22,000 deaths each year and 150,000 people being admitted to hospital. Around 40 per cent of accident and emergency admissions are alcohol related and between midnight and 5 a.m. that figure rises to 70 per cent. The severe implications of alcohol to health are indisputable. Prolonged heavy drinking damages one's liver. In the short term that may be reversible but the damage can become permanent and life-threatening. Cirrhosis is the main cause of death in very heavy drinkers.
	The main part of the brain to be affected is the frontal lobe which controls our social behaviour and suppresses our more primitive instincts. Judgment is also seriously impaired, which makes driving dangerous, even with small quantities of alcohol. Prolonged heavy drinking over many years can lead to significant brain damage and loss of intellectual ability. Heavy drinkers who substitute alcohol for healthy food are prone to nutritional deficiencies. Alcohol is also very high in calories. Four pints of beer can contain over 1,000 calories. As a result, weight gain becomes quite a common problem.
	The burden which alcohol creates for our police force is vast. That has already been dealt with by many noble Lords. The burden on the fire service is also considerable, as has been mentioned several times. We could save an enormous amount every year if this problem were really tackled. It is not being tackled properly at all. Drinking to excess seems to have become socially acceptable among most age groups and genders. We must do something about it. The Family Spending Report of February 2004 states that British households spend on average £5.90 a week on spirits, wine, beer and alcopops for home consumption; and only £5.40 on fresh fruit and vegetables.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. We must seize the teachable moments to try to stop this appalling scourge. One good idea is to label all drinks with the number of units they contain.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing this debate and on his telling analysis. We accept that alcohol misuse is a significant problem that needs to be addressed by our society. This has been reflected in the important contributions in today's debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me a copy of the excellent lecture on the social problems of alcohol that he gave in 1981. This illustrates that the problem has been around for some time and is not peculiar to this Government's term of office, and it shows, as this debate has shown, that the manifestations of the problem do change.
	The Government have been taking action to try to combat the harms caused by alcohol misuse by improving education, by improving health care, and by tackling crime and disorder. I do not suggest that we have all the answers, but we have shown a way forward in our work on trying to set out a coherent and comprehensive alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. I noticed that this document has not totally endeared itself to all parts of your Lordships' House. This is the only Government to have produced such a comprehensive strategy that honestly acknowledges the gaps in our knowledge. I am deeply impressed by the action research of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in this area. I shall certainly not compete with him on the knowledge that he has shown of the drinking habits of students, which is impressive.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, some students.

Lord Warner: My Lords, it is not the purpose of this Government to demean students. We are actually trying to improve their access to university.
	One of the strategy document's key strengths is its cross-cutting nature. It recognises also that the Government alone cannot solve the problems caused by alcohol misuse. That is why the strategy tries to involve and bring together a wide range of government departments, a range of people in the NHS, police, local authorities, voluntary organisations and the drinks industry in a partnership to try to tackle misuse. The Government agree with all noble Lords who have said that we need integrated responses from all the agencies, both at the national and the local level.
	The Department of Health and the Home Office will be jointly responsible for implementing the strategy, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and other departments will be very much involved. Let me make that clear to noble Lords who have expressed concerns in that regard. A number of noble Lords have questioned why we do not, to put it crudely, price the problem out of existence. There is evidence that population measures such as high prices, taxes, restricted availability and restrictions or bans on advertising do not always deliver the required results. Countries such as Britain, with historically high alcohol taxes and restricted hours of availability, have seen a rise in alcohol consumption, while in other countries such as France and Italy, consumption has decreased independently of any government measures. There is plenty of evidence for this, which was used by the Strategy Unit. I will not run over all the sources, but there are seven or eight that I can communicate to noble Lords if they wish.
	Action on education is an important issue. We know that people need relevant and easily accessible information about alcohol to help them make decisions about their drinking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we need better evidence on what works in education on this topic. I know from my time as chairman of the Youth Justice Board that young people are starting to drink earlier. There is good research evidence on that, and I agree with noble Lords who have raised that issue. That is why giving information about alcohol must start early. That is why the Government have ensured that alcohol education is built into the national curriculum for science from the age of seven. Alcohol education also forms part of personal health and social education. The DfES has invested £3 million in the 2001–04 period to improve teacher training on drugs, alcohol and tobacco education. New, improved guidance on drug education was issued to schools in March of this year.
	A number of noble Lords have raised issues around communications. The Department of Health has set aside a central budget of about £0.5 million each year for alcohol health promotion work. I accept that that is probably not enough. We produce a range of leaflets and other materials that advise the public of the dangers of alcohol misuse. We produce specific leaflets for parents and young people, and we produce leaflets in key minority ethnic community languages. Every day, NHS health promotion units, as well as doctors and nurses, provide advice on sensible alcohol consumption to their patients. We will certainly look at whether the new quality and outcomes framework for the GP contract can be used in this area when it is reviewed. Furthermore, when the opportunities present themselves, A & E and arrest referral schemes try to get messages across on heavy drinking.
	Most people respond, and they drink sensibly and responsibly, and do not cause harm to themselves or to others. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that there is a need to continue with some kind of sensible drinking message for many people. It is not appropriate for everyone, as the noble Lord has said. Our research shows that those people who do not drink sensibly simply do not wish to do so. Many of those whose drinking is heavy at times still think that they are operating within normal boundaries. We do have a serious problem here. Communicating with these drinkers is a real challenge for this Government, and would be for any government. That is why we are reassessing the sensible drinking message to try to find a format that people can relate to in their everyday lives and drinking experiences. It is important to get this right. There would be no point in replacing the current message with one that does not work any better.
	We aim to complete a reassessment of this area and have revised messages ready by the end of June 2005. Whether we express any new messages on units depends on the research that we are currently carrying out. This work will determine our expenditure on promoting our messages. My noble friend Lord Brooke asked about that. We have already made a start, and that is why we want to commission more work in this area to try to understand how people absorb and act on communication methods and messages. We are also developing communication work targeted specifically on binge drinkers and chronic drinkers. This will be the time to consider increasing expenditure on promoting those messages.
	We recognise the concern that has been expressed about alcohol advertising, especially about advertisements that may appeal to children and young people. We currently have a framework of statutory and non-statutory rules on advertising, which states that advertisements should not appeal to children and should not give a false impression of alcohol. Advertisements should not imply that drinking alcohol improves a person's mental or physical abilities, or that it can be associated with social or sexual success. The strategy recommended a review of these rules to ensure that they were working as intended.
	Ofcom has been asked to oversee this review. We understand that Ofcom proposes to consult a range of stakeholders in this area and complete the review by the end of 2004. This review will focus in particular on ensuring that advertisements do not target under-eighteens, that they do not encourage irresponsible behaviour, and that Ofcom's publicity stresses the regulator's role in relation to broadcast advertising and complaints.
	A number of noble Lords have stressed the importance of action to tackle the long-term effects of alcohol misuse, which can have a devastating effect on health. The link between alcohol and liver cirrhosis is well known. The Chief Medical Officer has made it clear and noted in his reports that the death rate from liver cirrhosis is rising significantly, particularly among people aged under 65. Over the past 10 years the number of men aged under 65 dying from liver disease and cirrhosis rose from just over 1,000 to nearly 2,500. The number of deaths among women has roughly doubled in the same period.
	Chronic long-term drinking can also be associated with an increased risk of heart disease, stroke and certain cancers. There have been a number of local initiatives in this area where the NHS has tried to work with patients to try to improve their understanding of the damage that they are doing to themselves. There has been a particularly effective one at the Royal Liverpool Hospital.
	The short-term health effects of alcohol misuse are clearly visible, as a number of noble Lords have said, in our A&E departments. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked about safety measures in A&E departments. The Department of Health counter fraud and security services, working with the NHS, try to improve security in a number of areas, particularly in A&E departments. But I will take back the question about whether licensees should be contributing to this particular activity.
	Binge drinking can be linked with accidents and injuries, as a number of noble Lords said. I pay tribute to the work done by Colin Drummond in his report on A&E attendances, which found that on average 40 per cent of all A&E attendances are alcohol related. This rises to 70 per cent of attendances between midnight and 5 a.m. over the weekend. We are extremely grateful to Professor Drummond for his report and the insight that it provides.
	I would also like to pay tribute to the work done by Professor Jonathan Shepherd in Cardiff A&E, which I first encountered when I was in the Home Office. He has done a huge amount of work to show the importance of A&E departments in helping to produce local strategies that can improve our response. The work that he has done with the police and other local agencies—and the impact that that has had on national policy—is very significant.
	We plan to pilot a range of models of screenings and interventions to establish whether the encouraging results from initiatives such as Jonathan Shepherd's can be achieved across NHS treatment structures. I am sure that he and others will be pleased to learn that at least one of the pilot sites will be an A&E department. The pilots will also help to establish whether these interventions can save the NHS the cost of more complex and costly healthcare for these patients at a later date.
	The Government's strategy documents note that very little information has been collected on alcohol treatment and that it has been given very little priority at the national and local level. That is typical of the honesty with which the Government have approached this area. Therefore, the first step is to plug these information gaps.
	The Department of Health will conduct a national audit of demand for, and provision of, alcohol treatment. That will be completed by the end of January 2005. The results of this audit will be used to develop a programme of improvements to treatments. I accept that there has probably been less research on alcohol dependence than on drugs, which has been a high priority for the Government. However, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that alcohol treatment itself tends to be funded by PCTs at the local level. That is why figures in this area at the national level are modest, as several noble Lords have said.
	A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the effects of excessive drinking during pregnancy, which may affect the brain of the developing foetus. The Government have recommended that women who are pregnant or are trying to get pregnant should not drink more than one to two units of alcohol per week. We have good reason to believe that the majority of women are aware of and follow this advice. The infant feeding survey of 2000 indicated that 71 per cent of pregnant women who drank during pregnancy drank less than one unit per week on average. Only 3 per cent drank more than seven units per week and only 1 per cent of women drank more than 14 units per week.
	I am not sure where my noble friend Lord Mitchell obtained his figures on the number of FAS cases. Our hospital episodes statistics show that 128 children were diagnosed with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome during 2002-03. That is admittedly more than the previous year, but clearly substantially lower than the figure that he cited.
	The Government plan to publish a White Paper on public health later this year. We are currently conducting a consultation exercise asking for views on priorities for action. That will end on 28 May. I cannot speculate on the details of what might be in the White Paper, but I would urge anyone who has an interest in public health to contribute to that consultation. Certainly the Government will consider very carefully the points made in the debate today.
	A number of noble Lords raised issues concerning labelling. Unit labelling is currently governed by EU law, which does not allow for compulsory unit labelling. The Department of Health will examine whether that can be changed at the EU level. In the meantime we will be encouraging drinks manufacturers to put unit labels on bottles. There is no evidence from the USA that health warnings work. That is why the strategy calls for more information about sensible drinking to be placed on bottles.
	I should like to turn to some of the issues that have been raised relating to alcohol-related crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. Alcohol-related crime and disorder and under-age drinking are major concerns to many of our communities, especially in town and city centres. The Home Office has been trying to combat these concerns. This was discussed by the Home Secretary and the ACPO conference yesterday, a point to which a number of noble Lords have alluded.
	There are many excellent examples of localities which have developed good approaches to tackling alcohol-related crime. The Home Office published a development and practice report alongside the alcohol strategy, called Alcohol audits strategies and initiatives: lessons from Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. That sets out examples of approaches to dealing with alcohol-related problems locally.
	One such example is the Leicester Nightrider scheme, which was set up to deal with the problems caused by the slow dispersal of crowds leaving clubs and late-night bars. A number of noble Lords have referred to Manchester. The Manchester City Safe scheme was set up to co-ordinate approaches to alcohol-fuelled violent crime. It targets people with safer drinking messages, using posters, for example, and enforces penalties for anti-social behaviour to achieve the maximum deterrent effect. It works closely with the industry and brings together a range of statutory authorities to ensure effective management of the night-time infrastructure. As a result of the scheme, late-night disorder was reduced by 8.5 per cent in the first year and 12.3 per cent in the second year. There are good practical examples of how the police and the other agencies are having an effect.
	All licensed premises in Burnley are, having paid a joining fee, members of Burnley Against Night-time Disorder. Those arrested in Burnley for violent crime, disorder or supplying drugs are photographed by the police and put under an interim ban that prevents them entering licensed premises in the town centre until the next BAND meeting reaches a decision on whether to uphold the ban. The decision is reached after a vote by licensees, and the banned person's details are circulated in town centre licensed premises.
	Police commanders have the flexibility to deploy officers according to demand. In addition, most forces have operational support units. I say gently to your Lordships that police funding has been increased substantially by this Government, and the number of police officers is at a record high. There are resources available to tackle the issue in many of our police force areas. Police in inner-city areas have already made effective use of fixed penalty notices for disorder. Such notices have had a good effect on attempts to deal with people who are drunk and disorderly. Lancashire police recently launched a penalty notice for disorder scheme in Blackpool and have made effective use of the street issue of notices.
	During the summer of 2004, we will crack down through a new enforcement campaign on under-age drinking and alcohol-related violent crime. Police forces will conduct announced and unannounced action against retailers who sell alcohol to under-18s and to those who are already drunk. We want to make it clear that operating outside the law will not be tolerated. Naming and shaming is another new idea that is being considered and is well worth further consideration as part of local initiatives to tackle crime.
	Several noble Lords asked about plastic glasses. People such as Professor Shepherd, whom I have already mentioned, have done a lot of work in that area. There is an issue about establishing whether there could be a kitemark. As I understand it, there is no kitemark at present. There is also an issue about the capacity to produce more plastic bottles. Those issues are being considered with the industry, and I will write to the noble Baroness with more detail.
	I do not have time to deal with all the questions that were raised, but I will write to noble Lords on the issues that I have not had time to answer them on. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the debate. I have tried to give examples of how the Government are trying to tackle the issue. Now, I propose to save my throat and go and have a sensible drink.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I warmly thank all those who took part in the debate. It has made a significant contribution towards discussion of the Government's alcohol strategy. I hope that it is not the only contribution that we shall make in your Lordships' House on the subject. It is a moving target.
	The Government must encourage a wider debate on the strategy outside the House. It is important that the views expressed this evening, many of which echo those of professionals in the health service—many distinguished members of the health service have taken part—deserve a thorough airing in a climate in which the Government listen to suggestions for improving the strategy, where it can be modified at the edges. I think that we have established that some of your Lordships are not satisfied with the fundamental basis of the strategy, which is that we have eschewed the price mechanism and embarked on a policy of collaboration with the drinks industry. Many of your Lordships expressed scepticism about that.
	As for the other ideas that came up, we were encouraged to hear what the Minister said about cracking down on retailers who sell drink to children under 18. I wonder only why it has taken so long to get round to doing that, when everybody knows what is happening. I also suggest to the Minister that it would be difficult for police officers to enter premises such as the large vertical drinking factories in the West End to establish whether anybody on the premises was under the age of 18.
	We have heard an enormous amount about the funding of alcohol treatment schemes and I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that they will not be promoted until the national audit of such ideas is completed in January 2005. Why identify the strategy and then embark on a series of further studies? I rather sympathise with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we have enough of pilots and that we need to get on with it.
	I conclude by mentioning the identification and referral of patients who come to accident and emergency departments or to general practitioners. Everyone has acknowledged that there is a treatable moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for example, spoke about the Paddington scheme, which allows patients to be referred immediately, or in a short period of time, to an alcohol treatment worker. To set up further pilots when that work has been going on, to my knowledge, for around 15 years would be a waste of time. That would be a disappointing result to all the work that has been put in to the strategy.
	However, we are grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I am only sorry that we do not have further time to go into the issue in more detail, but we shall come back to it soon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2004

Lord Bach: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004.
	Your Lordships will be aware that Parliament is asked to consider an order of this nature in most years as part of the process by which Parliament continues in force the service discipline Acts. The main element of that process is the five-yearly Armed Forces Acts. The most recent of those, the 2001 Act, extended the lives of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 by a further five years. However, that is subject to both Houses approving an order such as this in each intervening year.
	The service discipline Acts provide the statutory basis for discipline in the Armed Forces. They are of critical importance and so, therefore, is this order as the means of ensuring that the discipline Acts remain in force. It was considered in another place on 29 April.
	Before I move on, I should make one observation about the order. The Government have given an undertaking that Ministers moving instruments which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure will tell the House whether they are satisfied that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The order is of course a brief document, and it raises Convention issues only in that it continues in force three Acts that have been developed over the years to reflect the Convention rights.
	In last year's debate, I mentioned that the Government were awaiting a European Court of Human Rights judgment in the cases of Cooper v United Kingdom and Grieves v United Kingdom to determine whether the involvement of non-judicial authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences impaired the independence of the court martial and thus potentially infringed Article 6 of the Convention. The court's judgment of 16 December 2003 ruled, in Cooper's case, that the review process did not breach Article 6. However, in Grieves' case, it ruled that,
	"the position of naval Judge Advocates cannot be considered to constitute a strong guarantee of the independence of naval court martials".
	As a result, the Government laid the Human Rights Act (Remedial) Order in January, which your Lordships will be considering this evening. Thanks to the order, the service discipline Acts are compatible with the Convention rights and so is the present order that continues the Acts.
	I move on to our plans to replace the service discipline Acts with a single tri-service Act. The tri-service Act will replace the current and separate systems of naval, Army and Air Force law with a single system. It will better support the Armed Forces in the joint environment in which they increasingly carry out their training and operational tasks. The single system of service law will be underpinned by unified tri-service institutions dealing in particular with the administration and prosecution of courts martial.
	I mentioned in last year's debate that work on policy development was taking longer than expected. I am pleased that agreement has now been reached on the harmonisation of summary and court martial disciplinary powers and processes across the three services. The harmonised system has evolved from the present powers and reflects the basic principles of fairness, consistency and efficiency, combined with the need to support operational effectiveness, particularly through the better and transparent alignment of discipline with command. As well as harmonising service discipline, the Act will provide an opportunity for a sensible modernisation and the statutory basis for service discipline for the next generation.
	I undertook during last year's debate to assist the House by providing details of the main proposals for the tri-service Act once we had firmed these up. The main changes proposed include a range of harmonised summary offences and powers that would in essence involve a reduction of naval commanding officers' powers and some increases for army and RAF commanding officers. But there will be safeguards, applicable to all three services, to check the exercise of their current and proposed wider powers. This is not a revolutionary approach. Rather, it represents an evolution from present procedures, so that the fundamentals of summary discipline as the means of dealing with most offences, with trial by court martial for the more serious cases, are unaffected.
	The other main proposals involve commanding officers having powers to deal with officers and warrant officers in addition to powers to deal with non-commissioned personnel; the removal of the current power of the reviewing authority to quash a commanding officer's finding in exceptional cases, with all such cases being referred to the summary appeal court; the creation of a joint prosecuting authority and courts administration system; the introduction of one type of court martial, comprising a judge advocate and three or five lay members depending on the charge; the establishment of a standing court martial and a single appointing authority for judge advocates in all three services. Work is continuing on other areas covered by the legislation, such as the system for members of the Armed Forces making complaints and boards of inquiry.
	The Government and the Armed Forces attach considerable importance to the tri-service Act project. Although the work on policy development is taking longer than originally envisaged, it is not affecting our overall timetable. In any case, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, it really is essential that we get the policy right.
	We hope that the next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill, due in the 2005–06 Session, can be the vehicle for the tri-service legislation. That will obviously be subject to the availability of parliamentary time for what is expected to be a very large Bill. In the mean time, it is our intention to assist Parliament in its consideration of our proposals. We shall give further thought to how that might best be done. I am keen to draw particularly on the experience and knowledge of Members of this House in the scrutiny of service law.
	As I have mentioned, the need for a tri-service Act derives from the importance of having a better disciplinary framework in the many situations in which the services work together. Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have demonstrated the professional, disciplined approach of our Armed Forces, and it is that operational effectiveness that we must support through any changes to service discipline law.
	I turn to the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004. This remedial order was made pursuant to the urgent procedure prescribed in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and requires both Houses to approve the order by passing a resolution within 120 days of the order being made. Those special procedures allow for the speedy remedying of an incompatibility between domestic law and the convention's rights established under that Act.
	The remedial order amends sections of the Naval Discipline Act to provide that the Judge Advocate of Her Majesty's Fleet, rather than the Chief Naval Judge Advocate (as he then was), appoints judicial officers and judge advocates. The order also makes consequential amendments to the Courts Martial (Royal Navy) Rules 1997, the Naval Custody Rules 2000, the Summary Appeal Court (Navy) Rules 2000 and the Administration of Oaths (Summary Appeal Court) (Navy) Order 2000.
	The reason for making the remedial order is that in its judgment of 16 December 2003 in the case of Grieves v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that the position of the judge advocate in the applicant's trial by court martial did not provide a sufficient guarantee of the independence of the court martial. One of the factors that put the judge advocate in that position was provided for in legislation whereby a judge advocate must be appointed by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate, who is a serving naval officer.
	Although the court's judgment considered only naval courts martial, it applies equally to naval judge advocates appointed to the naval Summary Appeal Court and to naval judicial officers appointed for naval disciplinary purposes.
	A remedial order has been used to make these legislative changes as it is essential for the administration of justice, as well as for the maintenance of discipline within the Royal Navy, that trials and hearings under the Naval Discipline Act continue without delay. The incompatibility with Article 6 of the convention had to be removed as soon as possible so that trials and hearings could continue.
	Noble Lords will be aware from my Written Statement dated 19 April that no representations had been received concerning the order during the 60-day period following the date of 16 January when the order came into force. The Government therefore do not intend to amend or replace the order currently before the House.
	Noble Lords will also be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to each House on each instance of the use of these powers by a Minister and I am pleased to be able to say that the Committee has recommended that the order be approved. It did, however, make an observation concerning the undesirability of waiting for an adverse finding before introducing the changes necessary to bring the Royal Navy's courts martial system into line with those of the other two armed services in respect of this particular issue of compliance. It considered that a more dynamic approach to giving effect to previous observations by the European Court would have led to the conclusion that this latest finding of incompatibility was very likely. In response, I would say that the majority of measures introduced as a result of Findlay v United Kingdom (1997) applied to the three services equally and that the Court Martial Appeal Court, in the case of Skuse (2002) found in our favour with regard to uniformed judge advocates. We considered, therefore, that there were sufficient safeguards in place.
	On a more general point, I want to take the opportunity to remind noble Lords that it was the European Court's judgment in Cooper v United Kingdom which was handed down on the same day as Grieves that confirmed that the Royal Air Force and, by implication, the Army procedures satisfied the requirements of Article 6. The Cooper judgment reaffirmed earlier decisions that there is nothing in the provisions of Article 6 that would, in principle, exclude the determination by service tribunals of criminal charges against service personnel. However, we fully accept the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and are grateful for its work.
	The Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004, made in accordance with the "urgent" procedure under Section 10 and Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, has removed the incompatibility between the Naval Discipline Act and Article 6 of the convention.
	I am sure that noble Lords would not expect me to conclude without paying a warm tribute to the fortitude, resolve and discipline that are in evidence in the personnel of all our Armed Forces. I know that these qualities are fully valued in all parts of your Lordships' House. I have already moved the continuation order.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved. [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining these two orders. I should like to start by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the men and women, and the families, of our Armed Forces, not only members of the regular services but also our reservists. It is important for them to know that they will be treated fairly and effectively in matters of discipline. The fair application of military discipline, good and sound training, and military ethos, form the cornerstone of effective military operations. I look forward very much to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Attlee, who will bring first-hand experience to this short debate from his service in Iraq.
	We support the continuation of the service discipline Acts which form the statutory basis for discipline in our Armed Forces. The Minister has promised the House a single tri-service Bill to be brought forward, it is hoped, during the 2005–06 parliamentary Session. I look forward very much to contributing to that Bill and its pre-legislative scrutiny.
	Two years ago, my noble and very much missed kinsman Lord Vivian raised the issue that due to the differing nature of the three services and their different roles, there may be a need to introduce some parts of the Bill applicable to one specific service. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in relation to the possible need for that?
	We understand the reason for the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order and support it. The incompatibility with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has to be removed as soon as possible so that trials and hearings can continue without delay. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work carried out over many years by serving officers in that capacity in many courts martial.
	Finally, debating these service discipline orders gives me the chance to touch briefly on the situation in Iraq in the context of a possible breakdown of discipline. We on this side of the House soundly condemn any abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war, whoever has committed it. I praise the continued superb conduct of the vast majority of our Armed Forces. The British Army, far from being a bunch of thugs, as the Mirror has claimed recently, is, apart from a very few exceptions, made up of decent, disciplined people doing a difficult job in very dangerous circumstances.
	When we debated these orders in July last year, my kinsman Lord Vivian raised the specific issue of accusations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war by British forces. My kinsman was assured by the Minister that the Government knew of the accusations. Moreover, the Minister affirmed that the Government took the allegations very seriously and that full investigations were taking place. According to the Observer on 9 May the MoD confirmed that three British military personnel were stationed at Abu Ghraib prison. To whom did those British servicemen report? Were they aware of the mistreatment and abuses that were going on? Did they at any point complain to their superiors? Did those superiors report to Ministers? Bearing in mind that we were, and still are, officially co-occupiers of Iraq, with the United States, and therefore are jointly responsible, were any representations made to the United States?

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the two orders and I support the introduction of the tri-service Bill which has been mooted on many occasions in the House. We look forward to debating it on the Floor of the House, whenever government time allows.
	My noble friend Lord Lester will raise a number of issues, but I have two brief questions to ask the Minister. First, the evidence coming from Iraq at the moment, through the International Committee of the Red Cross, indicates that certain operating procedures undertaken by the British Army could have been in contravention of the Geneva Convention. If that is the case, the soldiers who undertook actions using the standard operating procedures may well have broken the code, but who is ultimately responsible in the chain of command for those standard operating procedures? Is the responsibility within the Army or is it within the MoD and do Ministers have a responsibility?
	Secondly, considering the court case yesterday, that has just been reviewed—I have raised this matter three times in the past week—can the Minister say, on the basis of the judicial review that will probably be undertaken, whether the European Convention on Human Rights is now to be viewed by the MoD and the Army as applicable to those serving in Iraq?

Lord Judd: My Lords, we all want to take this opportunity to state our admiration for what the armed services do on our behalf. Some years ago, as a Minister for defence, I had responsibility for speaking from the Front Bench on defence affairs, so I know how fortunate we are to have the calibre of services that we have.
	As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I can say that everyone on the committee was impressed by the commendable speed with which the Government moved on the issue of the Naval Discipline Act when difficulties arose. There is an argument about why action was not taken before but, when the issue arose, it has to be recognised that the Government could not have moved more rapidly. What has been done and the way in which it has been done deserves commendation.
	I should like to make a couple of points. One cannot look at the discipline Acts in isolation from the defence task and the issues with which our armed services are asked to grapple. We all know that the challenge to the services has changed dramatically in the recent decade. The task which we have set our armed services now is usually that of peace-keeping, peace-making and supporting the international community when it decides to grapple with a particular issue somewhere in the world. This is putting new and, in many ways, unimagined demands upon the armed services.
	Personnel within the armed services, not only at the most senior level but at junior officer level, NCO level and the level of the ordinary soldier, rating and airman, are frequently asked to be ambassadors, diplomats, social workers and so on. The strategy upon which they are embarked is often not simply a technical military strategy but the strategy of winning hearts and minds. I think that many in the House believe that the British armed services have built-up some enviable standards in this respect. In my view, we should not be reticent in bringing home those standards to others in the world, even to those with whom we are co-operating most closely—for example, in Iraq. I am proud of what has been learnt and what is being applied in that context.
	But, of course, it is not a lesson that has yet been accepted, fully appreciated and understood by everyone to the same degree. It is there to a commendable level of commitment but we know that there are backslidings and allegations of backslidings, to which reference has already been made in the debate. The point I wish to make is that we shall not get discipline right if we look upon it as a constraint.
	We would not get very far with the effectiveness of the armed services—I have often heard this point made by those with responsibility for leadership in the armed services—if everyone with responsibility for leadership was going around with a copy of the Queen's regulations under their arms, looking up the appropriate regulation and saying, "You must do this because of this regulation". We would not get very far with fulfilling the spirit of the Geneva Convention, let alone abiding by its principles, if all our officers and senior NCOs were expected to carry around in their pockets a copy of the Geneva Convention, to which they could make reference at any particular moment.
	Leadership in this context depends upon a culture. That culture means that these matters are absorbed, understood and felt by all those concerned. So while we need the discipline Acts, just as we need the law in society as a whole, they are most effective when they are there to reinforce and underline the culture and the set of values which apply.
	From that standpoint it seems to me that, when discussing the issues that we are discussing this evening, we need to give some thought to the training, the education and the preparation of our servicemen for the task in which they are involved. Human rights should not be something that people have to remember just because they have to give account of their conduct in terms of human rights. The purpose and culture of preserving human rights should be central to the task.
	If we have moved into this new phase of recognising new forms of challenge in international strategy, as I have said already, the issue of hearts and minds is central. Hearts and minds can only be won if at all times conduct is exemplary—and conduct is exemplary not just technically but because those undertaking the task can be seen to represent those values in action. That is a tremendous challenge to leadership, to training, to education and preparation.
	I would find it very reassuring if my noble friend in responding to this brief exchange could say something about the positive things being done within the services to make these issues central to their culture for every serving man and woman.
	Having said all that, I conclude by saying that I am delighted to hear of the work being done on a common approach to discipline across the three services. As the whole task of security and defence becomes much more integrated and a co-operative task between the services, this is a logical development which recognises the new realities and is altogether sensible. I am sure the House will want to give it all possible support when it is put before us.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I join the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in greatly welcoming not only the remedial order but also what the Minister said in his response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee, which I am sure will be welcomed by all noble Lords.
	On 17 May 2001, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, there was a remarkable and memorable debate in this House at the instigation of my party, introduced by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, calling attention to the UK's obligations under international law concerning the use of armed force. My own speech concentrated on the limits imposed by international humanitarian law.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in her reply assured the House, as one would expect, that the Government would give the Armed Forces and civil servants clear guidance about their obligations under humanitarian law. I hope and believe that the Minister will be able to confirm that such clear guidance was given before the conflict. I share the Minister's view and that of the whole House about the courage, fortitude and good discipline of the overwhelming majority of members of the Armed Forces.
	Unfortunately, last Sunday the Prime Minister had to give—as he properly did—a public apology to anyone who has been mistreated by British soldiers. And he gave an assurance that:
	"Those who are responsible for this—if they behaved in this appalling way—they will be punished according to army discipline and rules".
	The order we are asked to approve this evening properly ensures continuity so far as the service discipline Acts are concerned. They are really the frameworks to which the Prime Minister was referring when he talked of discipline and punishment. What the order does not do is to provide any means of redress for any Iraqi victims of the abuse of power by members of the Armed Forces, and that is the issue on which I should like to focus.
	On 4 May, the noble Lord, Lord Bach told the House that UK personnel in Iraq,
	"are subject to UK law, as they would be in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 4/5/04; col. 1030.]
	In the United Kingdom, the victim of a violation of human rights is able to claim legal redress under the Human Rights Act, including compensation. He or she also has rights under the general law. It is important at this time for the House to be fully informed this evening as to the precise position about the accountability of UK personnel in Iraq—to the Iraqi victims of any abuse of human rights, and their entitlement to any compensation.
	In the debate in the other place on Monday, the right honourable Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, revealed that British troops had used unlawful interrogation techniques in the aftermath of the conflict—notably by hooding prisoners. That practice was apparently stopped in September. It is more than 30 years since I had the privilege of acting as co-counsel with Brian Hutton QC as he then was, led by the Attorney-General, Sam Silkin QC, defending the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights in the case brought by the Irish Republic complaining of the use of inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques in Northern Ireland. We undertook to the court that the five interrogation techniques condemned by the court as involving serious breaches of Article 3 of the European Convention—including covering a detainee's head with a hood—would no longer be used. Instructions were therefore given to the Armed Forces to ensure compliance with that undertaking.
	I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is therefore quite deplorable that instructions that have been in place for some 30 years should have been breached in the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict. The report of the International Committee of the Red Cross of February described hooding as:
	"used to prevent people from seeing and to disorient them, and also to prevent them from breathing freely. One or sometimes two bags, sometimes with an elastic blindfold over the eyes which, when slipped down, further impeded proper breathing. Hooding was sometimes used in conjunction with beatings thus increasing anxiety as to when blows would come. The practice of hooding also allowed the interrogators to remain anonymous and thus to act with impunity. Hooding could last for periods from a few hours to up to two-to-four consecutive days, during which hoods were lifted only for drinking, eating or going to the toilet".
	The report describes some of what occurred—only some—as "tantamount to torture".
	That is the practice that was described by the report in paragraph 25, together with what is called other unacceptable techniques of physical and psychological coercion, as having been,
	"used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information or other forms of co-operation from persons who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offences or deemed to have an 'intelligence value'".
	I have written to the Minister asking him to inform the House in this debate, first, when and in what circumstances this practice—in serious breach of international human rights law—came to the attention of Ministers. Secondly, how systematic was this unlawful practice and by whom was it carried out? How was the practice brought to an end? What disciplinary action was taken to punish the perpetrators? What redress had been given to the victims of the practice? What legal redress is available to them—whether in Iraq or in this country—by way of compensation?
	I should also like to know whether the other examples of physical and psychological coercion described by the report have been abandoned, and whether the United Kingdom has complied with the request made by the International Committee of the Red Cross to take corrective action. The committee asked the authorities of the coalition forces,
	"to respect at all times the human dignity, physical integrity and cultural sensitivity of the persons deprived of their liberty held under their control; to set up a system of notifications of arrest to ensure quick and accurate transmission of information to the families of persons deprived of their liberty; to prevent all forms of ill-treatment . . . to set up an internment regime which ensures the respect of the psychological integrity and human dignity of the persons deprived of their liberty".
	The authorities are asked,
	"to define and apply regulations and sanctions compatible with International Humanitarian Law and to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are fully informed".
	They are also asked to investigate thoroughly the violations alleged. The next request will particularly appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as it is,
	"to ensure that battle group units arresting individuals and staff in charge of internment facilities receive adequate training enabling them to operate in a proper manner",
	and so on. It would be welcome to know that the Government are complying with those sensible recommendations.
	I have also written to the Minister asking him to clarify the legal status of troops and their detainees in Iraq now and after the 30 June transfer of sovereignty. I am afraid that I have tabled lots of Questions for Written Answer on that important subject, but am still unclear about the position. In an Answer given on Monday by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, she explained that:
	"If an investigation concludes that there was wrongdoing on the part of UK personnel, appropriate disciplinary measures will be taken, including criminal proceedings where necessary".—[Official Report, 10/5/04; col. WA 10.]
	But my Question asked also what recourse was available to the people of Iraq for breaches of their human rights. I have asked the Minister kindly to clarify that.
	At a time when it is vital to win the peace and to restore democracy under the rule of law in Iraq—an aim that we all share—and at a time when public trust and confidence in the Government has been regrettably undermined, it is essential for full and complete information to be given to the House before we approve the necessary orders.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest, as I am a serving TA officer and subject to military discipline as we speak. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about carrying a copy of the Queen's Regulations under his arm. I assure him that it is impossible; they are far too heavy and bulky.
	The Minister mentioned a proposed new power for the commanding officer to discipline an officer. In principle, that is welcome, particularly for minor offences such as a road traffic offence, which currently have to be dealt with by the brigadier. However, we will need to look very carefully at the range of offences that can be dealt with by the commanding officer.
	On Tuesday, the Minister was insistent that everyone deployed on Operation TELIC was properly trained on the law of armed conflict. Prior to deployment on Operation TELIC, I received such training: I saw the same video that I had watched for the past 20 years. I received no training on the rules of engagement. There is a very simple reason for that; namely, that the rules had not been agreed by Ministers at that point. They were agreed very much later.
	The Army has very interesting courses for equal opportunities, food hygiene and many other subjects. However, I ask the Minister—he may prefer to write to me—whether there is a requirement for instructors on law of armed conflict to attend a course. Indeed, is there a course available for those instructing on the subject? I have to say that the quality of instruction that I have seen from regular warrant officers is not very high.
	During the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, I mentioned some difficulties that arise with disciplining a TA soldier who commits an offence while technically off duty. Is it correct that, in a recent case where a TA soldier impersonated an officer—a very serious military offence—no disciplinary action was possible because the soldier was not on duty? Unfortunately, I was not able to pursue the issue at the quinquennial review, because the general election truncated our deliberations on the Armed Forces Bill.
	I am aware of changing standards, particularly in the Army; in other words, slackness. A few examples may be helpful. About two years ago, I reported to the Royal Military Police a REME recovery vehicle being driven recklessly. It was on the A303 and it was travelling at about 65 to 70 miles an hour. I know because he passed me when I was driving my Discovery. Furthermore, it was towing a heavy eight-wheel vehicle.
	I reported this incident to the Royal Military Police, but they did not bother to take a statement. They said that they would contact the unit. This really means that no disciplinary action will be taken—and that is despite having evidence from an expert witness. I suspect that nowadays it is too difficult to deal with. No wonder the Army has a horrendous road traffic accident record.
	I believe that the ECHR severely damages military discipline. We have moved away from a system of military discipline to a system attempting to be one of perfect military justice.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I speak as a former national service officer during the Suez War. Is he aware that in the 1950s the standards on human rights law and humanitarian law were all incorporated into our manual of military law and that those basic standards of human dignity and decency have not altered?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in some ways I agree with the noble Lord and I shall move on to subjects about which he has spoken.
	A good example is the difficulty of dealing with disorderly soldiers. It used not to be a problem—they were just put into the guardroom until they calmed down. Now, I am told, they cannot be detained because the conditions of the Bail Act apply. In order to detain a soldier, there needs to be evidence that he will interfere with witnesses or abscond. The danger is further disorder and I have been told of cases in which innocent soldiers have been seriously assaulted by a soldier who is disorderly. In days of old, he would have been put into the guardroom until he had calmed down. I feel that that is unfair and unjust to the soldiers assaulted.
	But even worse, instead of the disorderly soldier being disciplined by the commanding officer for a relatively minor offence that will not damage his career, he is now facing serious disciplinary offences and probably a court martial and severe punishment. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, rightly covered some of the difficulties we are experiencing in Iraq. Obviously, I am extremely concerned about the claims made in the Mirror. It is generally accepted that the photographs are fake—the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the other day identified difficulties with them. We are still anxious that these photographs may depict real events.
	The question arises: are these allegations well-founded? Much thought has been given to this by experts and I have been thinking about it. The allegations referred to a traditional beating with the butt of a rifle, among other claims. I do not find that claim at all convincing. The SA80 rifle is a very short weapon, unlike the 303 Lee Enfield or the SLR. It is not very good for a prodding assault—not even very good as a club because it could break and certainly be damaged. I suspect that other weaknesses have been identified.
	But I have several concerns. The first is the time that is taken to investigate these alleged offences. It goes back to my point about military discipline or perfect justice. Secondly, it may be that junior soldiers have behaved badly, but we place incredible demands on these soldiers, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They represent a very ordinary cross-section of society—they are not carefully selected, as are officers.
	It appears that the Americans are falling into the trap of subjecting junior soldiers to courts martial, but what about the officers? It is their duty to keep their soldiers under control and that is where I support the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We do not always agree, but I believe that the officers have an onerous duty to keep their soldiers under control. It is not easy, especially in the heat of the moment and with increased bureaucracy and difficulty in applying military discipline.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I think that, without exception, all noble Lords have supported the orders. Some important speeches have been made and important questions have been asked. I shall do my best briefly to answer them.
	I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for mentioning his kinsman Lord Vivian. He played an important part in these debates and he is still missed.
	In consideration of a tri-service Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked what had happened in relation to the points raised by Lord Vivian last year concerning the different needs of each service. Thus far, agreement has been reached on harmonised provisions for all the services on all disciplinary matters, but I do not think that the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that there may still be differences on minor details.
	The noble Lord said that I had promised that there would be legislation, although he was careful enough not to say that that would be in 2005–06. I cannot promise legislation—would that I could—but I can say that the Government very much hope that there will be legislation. It is certainly needed in this field.
	The noble Lord asked about the UK presence at Abu Ghraib—the United States detention centre. It is right that three UK military personnel worked in that prison from January until April this year. Those three personnel were from the Army Intelligence Corps. One was a captain interrogator; two were debriefers. The team was made up of specially trained personnel. As the noble Lord will know, interrogators are specially trained in questioning a non-co-operative witness. The interrogator left on 26 March. The debriefers, on the other hand, are specially trained in questioning a co-operative witness. They were present at the request of the United States authorities in order to speed up the process of questioning the detainees. They questioned about 20 in all. They did not leave because of allegations. The team went to the prison at the request of US Central Command. In March/April, it was concluded that their presence was no longer essential.
	I was asked whether those personnel had any contact with personnel currently under investigation. The answer is: no. By January 2004, the US unit and the individuals under investigation left the prison. Did they witness any abuse? The answer is: no. They were not aware of any allegations or actual incidences of abuse during their time at the prison. The incidents under investigation took place prior to their arrival. A lieutenant witnessed one incident of what he considered to be rough handling by US personnel. That was immediately reported to the US authorities. The leader of the team was asked whether he or any of his team had seen or heard of any abuse. I have dealt with that matter in some detail. It is an important question and the noble Lord is entitled to a decent answer.
	I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. He asked about the judicial review. As I understand it, a full hearing has now been given. I cannot tell the noble Lord that the Ministry of Defence will not argue that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply. He will understand that we accept absolutely that international law, the Geneva Conventions and UK law apply. However, there is an issue about whether the Convention applies, which may well have to be argued.
	As to the noble Lord's point about where the buck stops—I think that is a fair way of putting it—the Chief of Joint Operations is responsible for standard operating procedures. Is he potentially liable for breaches? The answer is that he promulgates the procedures in his name but the political responsibility for the conduct and operations of the Armed Forces lies ultimately with the Secretary of State. The service discipline Acts provide mechanisms to ensure that the political responsibility is met by the punishment of offenders.
	I am grateful for the speech of my noble friend Lord Judd, who was a distinguished defence Minister. He made some important points, in particular in relation to the job that our Armed Forces at all levels now have to do, not just in Iraq but around the world. He asked whether they are trained to do that job. I do not have a full answer except to say that great efforts are made to ensure that soldiers and other members of the Armed Forces are properly trained for the tasks that they now meet, which in many ways are somewhat different from those they may have met in the past. It may be that there is more we can do in that regard. The defence training review proposed a coherent set of interlinked measures to deliver a training and education system that is more integrated between the services and between service and civilian training; more aligned to operational and business needs, more responsive to change and more cost effective. We are always seeking to do better.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way and for what he said in response to my point. However, can he specifically tell the House how far there is training throughout the armed services in the importance of human rights, their observation and our commitment to them in the undertaking of all the work that is done?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, before any of the Armed Forces went to Iraq, as part of their training they would be informed of and taught the importance of their obligations under the law: the Geneva Convention, international law and English—British—law. At present I cannot say more than that.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to mention one matter for him to reflect on. During the debates on the International Criminal Court Bill I raised the point about the manual of military law and the parts written by Sir Hersch Lauterpact and Colonel Gerald Draper. I asked whether that manual might be reissued because it proved so valuable to us during the Suez period. As I recall, the Minister indicated that that was an interesting idea. I wonder whether that kind of idea of published guidance that the public can see and that the Armed Forces may have available provides benchmarks on which we can all rely in future.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful. Again, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will take back that idea. However, I do not want to mislead the House by saying more is done than is done, nor the other way round. Clearly, there is some training in this field. I suspect the issue will be whether that is sufficient given the kind of jobs they now have to do.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was kind enough to write to me and inform me of the issues that he was to raise. I think there may be a misunderstanding between us. I have looked carefully at Monday's Hansard for another place and I do not believe my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said—even though it was put to him that he said—that hooding was used not on detainees but for interrogation purposes. It was put to him in a question:
	"The Secretary of State has just confirmed that hoods were used on detainees in Iraq between April and September last year".
	I do not believe that my right honourable friend had ever said that. Clearly, there had been allegations. My right honourable friend replied:
	"The policy did not change, and it was stopped".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/04; cols. 34-35.]
	I appreciate very much the important role that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has played over the years in establishing the rule that was announced in this House on 2 March 1972. It applied, as he said, to the interrogation of prisoners.
	I shall now answer the noble Lord's questions. Hooding may be justifiably used in very limited circumstances; for example, on arrest, in order to maintain the anonymity of a suspect. We all know of examples where that happens, and it may be in the arrested person's best interests, particularly if he is seen being arrested and it is suspected that he may later turn out to assist us.
	All UK interrogators are highly trained. Their training includes specific instruction that hooding must not be used as an interrogation technique. In Iraq during operation TELIC we are confident that interrogators have not used hooding as a technique. If allegations are made that suggest that they have, of course we will consider them very seriously.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I fully understand what has been said. My puzzlement is that the Red Cross report deals, at paragraph 25, with hooding among other things as methods of ill treatment most frequently alleged during interrogation. Paragraph 26 states:
	"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information".
	It is very careful to acquit the coalition forces of other forms of systematic ill treatment. But, as I read the report, it seems to say that this is one example—and only in the early aftermath of the war—where a practice of hooding was used coercively in that way. On reading the report, I was concerned that the position as outlined by the Minister had not been followed—that the practice of unacceptable use of hooding had been discontinued. Perhaps that can be cleared up, because obviously it is very important. Why was it discontinued? How did it come to our notice, and how was it discontinued?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my only challenge to the noble Lord would be to suggest that the Secretary of State was not conceding that there had been proven examples of hooding being used in interrogation, as the noble Lord suggested. All hooding was stopped on 26 September 2003. Ministers were made aware on that date that the permanent joint headquarters had issued direction that the practice should cease forthwith. That means hooding on arrest as much as any other hooding of detainees, whether or not they were being interrogated. I hope that that makes the position slightly clearer.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting at this late hour, but obviously we will return to this issue many times in future. My understanding was that the British Army stopped using hooding in 1971. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that it was not a new procedure being used in Iraq.

Lord Bach: My Lords, that is not the position as I understand it. The Parker report and a Statement made to both Houses on 2 March 1972, which I have taken the trouble to read before coming into the Chamber, made clear that what was being talked about were a number of methods of interrogation, including hooding. As I have said, it has always been accepted that on rare occasions—perhaps on arrest—hooding may be acceptable. There is certainly nothing in the Statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this House to suggest that that was not true.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I entirely agree with that. What I still do not understand is that if there was nothing wrong with hooding, and if it was not being used in interrogation techniques, what was it that caused the practice to be abandoned? Did it in any way relate to what the Red Cross had been saying, not in the February report, but in earlier conversations with the authorities?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will have to do with the fact that hooding was stopped. It was stopped at that time. I am not in a position to give the actual reason why that order was given, but it was given, and since that time, there has been no hooding of any kind.
	The noble Lord asked what disciplinary actions were taken to punish the perpetrators. Any allegations will be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated, and if British forces are found to have acted unlawfully, appropriate action will be taken. As far as redress is concerned, there is a standard procedure for making claims against the UK authorities. I am advised that the redress that is available is that an Iraqi civilian may bring a claim against the UK authorities under UK national law. That procedure was established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority. I hope that that more or less goes some way to answering the questions asked by the noble Lord, but I suspect that it is not entirely satisfactory, given the look on his face.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on that last point—

Lord Judd: My Lords, before we leave this point, will my noble friend the Minister write to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and place a copy of the letter in the Library? There is a difficulty here. When the Minister says that he is not in a position to say why the order was given, is he suggesting that he is not in a position on security grounds, or that he does not know? I have been a Minister, and you cannot possibly know everything. Points are raised in debate that sometimes need to be looked into and answered afterwards. There is some anxiety as to how far the Ministers are in the driving seat. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could have some more information about the rationale for that very appropriate and right decision having been made when it was.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the reason why—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have such a sad life that I have read the law of administration for the state of Iraq for the transitional period. It is terribly important, and I am grateful to the Minister. Contrary to my reading of the law, what the Minister has just said is that victims of any abuses in Iraq have a remedy in Iraq under the administrative law in Iraq, or have a remedy in this country. That is very important, if that is the case. And if that is the case, it greatly reassures me, because it means that we are properly accountable in those very rare cases where there have been abuses.
	I have read this 8 March 2004 law obtaining in Iraq, and although it protects the human rights of Iraqis against Iraqi institutions, I did not read it as giving any remedy against the coalition forces under that law. I could not find any other law under which there would be compensatory remedies—civil redress, as distinct from English criminal sanctions and so on. I wrote to the Minister to try to clarify that.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we should not extract information like pulling teeth at this time of night. It is a messy way of doing it. I am not suggesting that the Minister is not being entirely coherent, but if a coherent, comprehensive, statement could be placed in the Library, that would certainly meet all my legitimate needs.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I would like to support—

Lord Bach: My Lords, let me deal with these points first if I may.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lester, should be careful in quoting me. I will read again what I said: any Iraqi civilian may bring a claim against UK authorities under UK national law. That procedure was established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority. It made no comment as to in which country or how that should be done. I have to stand by that.
	It is a sensible idea that I write in due course to the noble Lords dealing with these difficult and complicated matters and put a copy of the letter in the House Library. The noble Lord having been gracious enough to let me know what his questions were, my purpose today was to try to answer him as frankly as I could. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that it is not accepted that hooding has been used in the course of interrogation in Iraq.
	If allegations are made to that effect, they will be taken extremely seriously.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
	Can his response include the difference between war fighting operations, peace support operations and counter-terrorism operations?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I will consider the noble Earl's suggestion. I come to his speech now, and I will be brief. He suggests that I write to him about those separate questions, and that is exactly what I will do.
	It is always good to hear from the noble Earl because of his experience in the field as a serving officer of the Territorial Army. I thank him for what he has said and I will write to him in due course.
	We have had a good debate on an important subject at an important time. I hope that the House will feel that it has been treated fairly this evening.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15 January be approved.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Bill returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.